The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <61B49BC6DA0DDE40957FB499E1835E3705FA8395@nj7460exch010u.ho.lucent.c
om>, "Varma, Eve L (Eve)" writes:
> Hi Curtis,
> 
> I concur the second issue is the key one.  However, I don't view it as orthog
> onal
> as there are some interpretations (including yours ;-)) that liaison internet
>  drafts
> from another SDO should also be handled as individual submissions.
> 
> Eve


Eve,

Correction.  There are not "some interpretations".  Liaison internet
drafts from another SDO may be either submitted as informational or
they are treated as individual submissions.

That issue is not relevant to the draft under discussion if Loa
removes any mention of liasons.

Curtis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: Varma, Eve L (Eve)
> Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; George Newsome; Stephen Trowbridge; Loa
> Andersson; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
> 
> 
> 
> > Your comment re "legitimate requirements" has everything to do with
> > the relatio nship with other SDOs, which is currently implicitly
> > coupled into the liaison discussions.  My concern , as is also
> > expressed in Steve Trowbridge's earlier comments, is related to the
> > Gatekeeper role that you are appearing to advocate.
> >  
> > For individual contributor drafts coming in, it's quite appropriate to
> > evaluate requirements and determine if they are legitimate.  It's a
> > different case when another SDO, responsible for a non-IP applications
> > domain, has established a set of requirements related to that domain.
> >  
> > Eve
> 
> 
> If we remove all mention of liason, then the document applies to all
> individual submissions.  You are not arguing that this is a bad thing
> for individual submissions.
> 
> A second orthogonal issue which this draft does not address is whether
> liason internet-drafts would be given special consideration or would
> continue to be handled as individual submissions.
> 
> If the mention of liasons is removed and there are no further issues,
> we can move forward with this draft.  [Then discuss the liason issue
> later and preferably on some other list.]
> 
> Curtis
>