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

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@ciena.com>]

Hi Folks,

I support the request to stick to constructive comments.

Of course that means avoiding statements like "The
ITU has stepped out of bounds (again).  They deserve to be ignored."
(Last I heard, SDH/OTN networks were within bounds of ITU ;o)

Or "dogmatic statements of connection-oriented  religion" (these
are, for gmpls, connection-oriented networks we're talking about ;0)

Seriously, though, I do have some comments on the draft:

-- the figure shows the only path outside of the IETF process to
be a dustbin.  Hopefully that's not intentional, although a lot
of folks on the list probably believe this ;o)

-- there's some text mixed up in 2.2.1 regarding which mailing list
should be used.

-- we should incorporate Deborah's suggestion for 2.2.2 about having
the decision posted to the mailing list within a specified period  (the
posting of a decision could apply to liaisons, and might have helped
avoid the confusion with the ITU liaison)

-- in 2.2.4, the paragraph after item (2) seems a little premature - 
the recommendation by the rewg presumably must be approved by IESG/IAB
before a decision is made.

-- there is a bit of a loophole in that the problem could be accepted
and farmed off to a WG but there's no check to see if anything is ever
done, and items could easily fall through a crack given the large 
numbers of work items usually in CCAMP and MPLS.  There could be a 
procedure to revisit the decision in case no progress is being made
within some specified timeframe.

-- in general, I hope people keep in mind that the scope of interest
and the resources available in IETF are limited, and should not become a
bottleneck - if work can be or is already being done in other bodies and 
there is a process for IETF to review this work and identify potential
problems or simpler/more general ways to do the desired function,
this should be viewed as a generally positive thing.

Cheers,

Lyndon