|
Loa, Kireeti, I agree
with Malcolm. Since this
draft proposes a process change specifically dealing with requirements and
problem statements, and since ITU uses the liaison process for this reason, the
liaison process is very relevant to the changes proposed in this draft, and it
is not an orthogonal problem. Monica A. Lazer Network Architecture and Reliability 908 234 8462 mlazer@att.com -----Original Message----- Loa, the from the outside looking in the liaison process and the
change process are closely coupled. The liaison process is described in ITU-T
Recommendation A.4 and A.5 and in RFC 3356. The coupling occurs because the ITU uses the agreed liaison
process to communicate requests to modify IETF protocols based on requirements
agreed by the members of the Study Group (that originated the liaison).
The change process being proposed requires that this official request from a
SDO is converted into an individuals ID. The level of agreement in the
SDO is therefore obscured, this process appears to be in conflict with RFC
3356. The problem is particularly acute when the requirements are to
enable (or enhance) the management of a non IP network to support a non IP
client. If my understanding of the draft is correct such requests would
be rejected by the IETF. It is clearly beneficial to the industry if the basic IETF
protocols can be extended to address such applications. The IETF plays a
key role in ensuring that the integrity of the base protocols is not
compromised. Malcolm Betts Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393) -----Original Message----- I think I've clearly pointed out the limited scope of the change
process, recognized that there is a orthogonal problem on how we treats
liasions coming into the ietf, that the liasion process needs to be documented,
and that we will add text to address the limited intersection of the
change-process and liasion process in order to promote the cooperation with
other SDOs. /Loa <snip> |