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

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Curtis,

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> The emphasis on running code and rough consensus rather than study
> groups and voting has worked quite well.  There is not reason to
> change it or to consider a liason comment or contribution and
> different from any other contribution.

I'm glad to hear this!

It is important, especially as this argument goes downhill fast
(starting with veiled threats and "I'm calling your bluff" responses),
to keep the big picture in mind:

a) There is a half-written, half-implicit and half-in-the-hallways
   process *for the IETF* to change IETF protocols.  It would be good
   to have more of the process written down, at least in the context of
   (G)MPLS.  The primary goal of the (G)MPLS change document is that
   this process is made known to all SDOs (including the IETF!).
b) There are often requirements from other SDOs for changes in IETF
   protocols.  *If* they choose to bring these to the IETF and have
   the IETF do the changes, it is good for them to know the process.
   If, as Steve points out, the SDO chooses to make the changes on its
   own, for whatever reason, that is beyond the scope of the (G)MPLS
   change document.
c) A liaison statement may declare the intent to follow up with the
   requirements or requests for changes in IETF protocols, but should
   not (IMO) be used to effect those changes.  A process for replying
   to (and generating) liaisons statements is needed.
d) The fundamental IETF mechanisms (though some may view them as broken)
   such as rough consensus and running code are *not* in question here.
   Those may be brought up on the general IETF list, or with the IESG
   or IAB.

Kireeti.