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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> Liaisons are an IETF-wide issue.
>
YES.
 
> 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.
> 
It is not always the AD who sends. It could be a WG. Or whole IETF.

> 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?
> 
No of course NOT. Many Liasons will want an answer.
So we need a process to follow up and to track if a timely
response has been (or will be) send.

> But this shouldn't be discussed on these lists anyway :-)
> 
The general issue should not....
But the Liasons communication between ITU and CCAMP/MPLS has not
been going smoothly so far (even though we had good intentions).
Responses have not gone out in time (or in some cases at all).

So in that respect some of it is relevant here.
But possibly not to this specific document.
Depends on how you look at things I guess.

Bert