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

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

John,

> JD:  Is that a threat or a promise?  BTW, call & connection separation
> doesn't exist in PNNI either, at least up to the point that I stopped
> attending the ATM Forum.
Interesting that you should mention this.

We sent liaisons to the ATM forum, just as we did to IETF ccamp.
The reaction we got from the ATM forum was a great deal of help to
extend the PNNI protocols to meet our requirements. They provided
us numerous, helpful comments all through the process of development
of G.7713.1.

What we got from IETF ccamp was ignored (until we finally did the
work somewhere else and tried to get code points assigned).

We seem to have different understandings of what the problem is that
needs to be solved. My belief is that the problem is that we don't
have a good process for dealing with liaisons in IETF, and this
inhibits the kinds of productive relationships between IETF and other
SDOs that exist between many other (non-IETF) SDOs.

Some others on this thread seem to think that the problem is those
other pesky SDOs: after all, how could there possibly be a valid
problem statement or requirement that wasn't conceived of and developed
entirely within IETF? Every possible measure should be taken to
prevent that any work is done to address such requirements.

What is your perception of the problem?
Steve