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
Jonathan, When the IETF suddenly loses its interest in one of its protocols and another SDO has a concentration of expertise on it, an individual IETF submission targeted to STD track will naturally receive such fast track processing. -- Alex Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 9:57:45 AM, Jonathan Sadler wrote: > Just an observation... > Its kind of interesting to note that this "equal weight" > philosophy doesn't seem to extend to the IETF when sending > things to other organizations. Witness the recent proposal > to ISO on IS-IS extensions: > "IS-IS extensions submitted from the IETF to JTC1 will be > processed under the JTC1 fast track procedure. To ensure the > quality of such submissions, IETF SHALL apply to them the > procedures for Proposed Standard submission according to > [RFC2026]." > Wouldn't it be reasonable for other SDOs that have done the > same sort of quality check prior to sending something to the > IETF to be given the same courtesy of "fast track" > review/approval? > Jonathan Sadler > Alex Zinin wrote: >> <regular ietf'er hat on> >> >> Monday, March 3, 2003, 2:26:06 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote: >> > Hi Steve, >> >> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote: >> >> >> There is no doubt that liaisons CURRENTLY have no more wieght than >> >> individual IDs >> >> > This might be a fundamental difference between the IETF and other SDOs, >> > the ITU in particular. However, that still doesn't mean that this >> > policy of the IETF's is wrong. I happen to think that taking everything >> > at its own merit rather than considering where it came from is the most >> > democratic, equal opportunity means of handling it -- but that's a >> > personal philosophy, not necessarily echoed by the IETF. >> >> Bingo! >> >> It seems to me that this is the only way to ensure fairness in the >> IETF, actually. Once we start introducing any sorts of preferences or >> "weights", it may become a too attractive backdoor around the IETF >> process. >> >> Also, what does "weight" of a liaison or an ID really mean in a >> _consensus_ based organization? That we should suddenly have a worm >> and fuzzy feeling about that doc? And how does this "weight" compare >> to, for example, the weight of the consensus within the IETF to not do >> what's proposed, if that happens? >> >> Alex > ============================================================ > The information contained in this message may be privileged > and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the > reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an > employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. > Thank you. > Tellabs > ============================================================ |
|