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

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

Hi,

Very helpful email.  I concur with points 1-6.  Re points (a) and
(b), perhaps the best approach would be to first generate the
material itself.  Discussion of its subsequent subdivision would
be far easier, if there were actual content to work with.

Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:11 AM
To: mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt


All,

I might be stupid, but I actually see some commonality forming on this
thread, though there is much smoke

I think we agree on the following:

1. and most important - we want a productive, trustful and comprehensive
   co-operatiom between IETF and other SDOs
2. the process that describes how this co-operation is handled needs to
   be described
3. we need to have a known, reliable and open (g)mpls technology area
   process for how extend and change the (g)mpls protocols
4. this process also needs to be descirbed
5. that the (g)mpls working groups in the IETF (or maybe the IETF in
   general) [sometimes, often, regulary, a few times] have mismanaged
   incoming liasions from other SDOs

Note 1:
I know that some voices has been raised saying that "the general process
for c-operation between IETF and other SDOs" are not a subject matter for
for the mpls-list. I tend to agree, however one of our ADs made it
appropriate as long as we discuss the coupling between the to processes
above.

We disagree on:

a. whether the two processes needs to go into the same document or not
b. whether documents generated in one process could go seemlessly
   into the other process

I hope we agree on this:

6. that the relationship between IETF and other SDOs are by nature a
   relationship    between equal parties
7. that each organization are entitled to define it own processes,
   methodology and document types

Some personal reflections

- Kireeti and Bert has recognized that here has been less than satifactory
  performanse by the IETF in handling liasions in the past, we will not be
  any wiser if that aregument is repeated
- I don't think it is agood idea to describe the two process in the same
  document. the chnage-process is for our internal use, the liasion process
  is for our commuinication with other SDOs
  (I understand that from the other side this might look pretty much the
   same, but if the only problem is that of how some type of info sent
   from one organisation is received by another, let us solve that problem)
  It must be fairly easy for the sending organization say to the IETF 
"Please,
  handle the content of this liasion as an Internet Draft!" Based on that
  we can publish is as an ID, and include it in our work.
  But if there is written in stone that a liasion is a liasion is a liasion,
  then we will require that other SDOs send us IDs.
- in our internal processes we need documents ofer which we have change 
control
  and therefore it is unsatifactory to use non-IETF documents

Would be good if we could agree on points 1-6 and on a and b, would be far
easier to continue the disucssion.

/Loa