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

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

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 01:22:01AM +0100, Bert allegedly wrote:
> > 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.

Liaisons can be *generated* anywhere, but should be *sent* through a
predictable agent.  Having the IETF Chair, or "the whole IETF", send a
liaison is too general -- liaisons need to be more focused than that to
be useful.  Individual WGs could send individual liaisons but I believe
the AD level would be better for the usual reasons, coordination, an
integrative view, etc.

> > 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.

I do not believe any organization is obligated to reply to everything
that requests a reply (just think about the spam you get).  If the AD
and/or one or more WGs find the liaison (and the idea of replying to it)
interesting and useful, then they will reply.  The process for keeping
track of this is at the AD level.  

..swb