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

["Varma, Eve L (Eve)" <evarma@lucent.com>]

Hi,

The conversation that's being stimulated from the draft gets to the crux of
the issue I see with its current wording.  The draft is being
interpreted as simply describing the present IETF mode of operation.  I didn't
think that was supposed to be the intent.

Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:23 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Stephen Trowbridge; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 



It seems to me that Loa's  document simply describes how the IETF works.  As
such, I'm not sure it is even necessary. 

True, many people have  noticed that the IETF is free to  ignore the work of
other standard organizations.  True, the  fact that a particular proposal is
made by another  standards organization does not even  give the proposal any
special weight in the IETF.

I think these are  good things, and the IETF should not  make any changes in
this respect.  Hence I don't think  Loa's draft (if it needs to exist) needs
to change.

Certainly  the  fact  that  some  position  is  articulated  in  a  "liaison
statement"  should not  give  it any  special  weight.  The  fact that  some
position is supported  by "a threshold number of  vendors and SPs" shouldn't
give it any special weight either.