The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Cutis and Eve, I think we have come a full circle, now Curtis is suggesting that I remove something that is not in the draft ;). I don't discus liasions, simply because it was and is my opinion that they are not in the picture then it comes to handling changes to the (g)mpls protocols. Even though they are good for other things ;) /Loa Curtis Villamizar wrote: >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 >> >> >> > > > >
|
|