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

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

In message <2135200C183FD5119588009027DE572302836D53@webdev-owa.oni.com>, "Ong,
 Lyndon" writes:
> Hi,
> 
> Can I ask a clarifying question regarding liaisons?  The
> issue revolves around making extensions to GMPLS.  Is
> it the view that such extensions must be generated 
> through Internet Drafts, and cannot be through
> liaisons?
> 
> It sounds like people may be assuming that liaisons are
> always providing background information or requesting
> information, when on occasion a liaison may be requesting
> a change or action.
> 
> BTW, regarding responses to liaisons, the A-D may or may
> not be the proper source for a response, but the knowledge
> for putting together the response would typically reside
> within a particular WG, I believe.  One problem is that
> you don't have the time within an IETF meeting to assign
> a "stuckie" (to use the new term) to write a response ;o)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon


The way you initiate action within the IETF is to submit an internet
draft.  The liason response from the IETF should simply be to send a
copy of rfc2026 and invite participants of the other forum to
participate in the IETF process.

Curtis