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

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>]

Was the concern by saying "external standards bodies", it was interpreted as liaisons (as this is the only formal way for T1/ITU to communicate), which implies submission of an "individual draft", review, etc.? So as not to confuse "standards bodies" with liaison communication, how about in the draft changing this to "participants of external standards bodies"? Or perhaps best is to just remove. And let the liaison process address, with links to this document.

Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:16 PM
To: curtis@fictitious.org
Cc: Loa Andersson; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt


Curtis,
I have no problem to seperate the liaison process from the internal process.
In fact, a good liaison process is needed that would have much broader
applicability than (G)MPLS protocols.

However, I do disagree that we can go forward on one with out the other.
As Bala's flowchart shows, the effect of applying this draft to internally
and externally initated work alike is to give the externally initiated
work a fast track to the trash. Without the liaison process, this draft
seems to make what is already a bad problem with how we deal with input
from other SDOs even worse.
Regards,
Steve

Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> In message <3E5F8A25.8030201@pi.se>, Loa Andersson writes:
> >
> > - 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
> 
> If we can agree on this, then we can move forward with your document.
> 
> Curtis