Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

spamassassin -r
d
ajagopalan writes:
> Dimitri:
> 
> I don't recall the particular Yokohoma consensus
> you mention, although what you say could very well
> have happened. All I do remember is the total lack
> of interest in the audience about most of the drafts
> discussed. 
> 
> My gripe is basically about the lack of a process in
> the IETF to rigorously and constructively evaluate 
> on-going work outside. The liaisons
> obviously haven't worked very well, and the efforts
> by various people to bring in contributions on OIF
> and ASON work have been met with cynicism. This is
> the reason why there's a scramble at the last minute
> to "right" things. 
> 
> Going forward, I hope the IETF makes it mandatory
> to have outside work examined in the relevant WGs with
> the same seriousness as regular WG items (or assign
> evaluation teams, like design teams). This would bring
> overall sanity and be beneficial for all groups.
> 
> regards,
> 
> 
> Bala Rajagopalan
> Tellium, Inc.
> 2 Crescent Pl.
> Ocean Port, NJ 07757
> USA
> Ph: +1-732-923-4237
> Email: braja@tellium.com


Any organization or representative may sumbit an internet draft and it
may be given consideration by the WG.  It carries no more weight than
any other individual WG submission.

If the WG is not interested, that is the end of it.

Curtis