Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 08:05:35PM +0100, Loa Andersson allegedly wrote:
> We need to document the (g)mpls-change process, most of this is in the
> current draft. The concerns I've seen so far is on how and what could
> be accepted as input to the process, that should be easily solvable.
> 
> We need to doucment the ietf way of responding to liasions.
> 
> It is my immediate reaction that this do not really belong in the same
> document, if for no other reasons, at least for practical reasons. If
> there is a strong motive to put them in the same document, I can live
> with that.

They don't.  The change process is specific to a particular protocol
group.  Liaisons are an IETF-wide issue.

I think if we want to send a liaison to another group, the AD just sends
e-mail, and archives it on ietf.org.  That's just an administrative
matter, nothing we even need a draft for.

Incoming liaisons take a little more policy but not much.  We want them
archived, so just saying "submit a draft" isn't good enough.  I'm afraid
we need to provide mailto:ietf-liaisons@ietf.org, and yet another folder
on the web pages.  All ADs get to hear about all incoming liaisons, and
if they think it's appropriate for one of their WGs they forward it.
Done?

But this shouldn't be discussed on these lists anyway :-)