The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

Deborah,

I'm trying to understand the statement on 

"as this is the only formal way for T1/ITU to communicate"

if the key word is "formal" then it might be an obstacle, but at least
in one case the "formal" part has not been imposible to overcome.

Looking at the recent history e.g. the OAM label.

This was brought in to IETF, as an liasion and as a ID by Hiroshi Ohta it was
reviewed and discussed in the mpls group and progressed to an RFC, to cover 
the need of one of the ITU study groups.

I'm not saying that it went smoth adn that everyone are happy with the
decision, and possibly we weren't as attentative as we should have been,
but given a bumpy road - it went through.

Why can't this be the model for other similar "request for changes"? The
change process are there for trying to take the worst bumps out of the
road.

/Loa



Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS wrote:

>Was the concern by saying "external standards bodies", it was interpreted as liaisons (as this is the only formal way for T1/ITU to communicate), which implies submission of an "individual draft", review, etc.? So as not to confuse "standards bodies" with liaison communication, how about in the draft changing this to "participants of external standards bodies"? Or perhaps best is to just remove. And let the liaison process address, with links to this document.
>
>Deborah
>
>  
>