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

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

I think that we (the IETF) do need to work on the "liaison problem"
but I do not think that a perfect liaison process would reduce the
requirement for the IETF to be sure that the extension process for
IETF protocols is clearly documented.

We have been trying to be clear in new protoocls by including 
an IANA Considerations section that says how to extend the technology.  But
many IETF protocols come from a time before we started doing that and
I think it is vital that the process gets defined for those protocols
(one example is RFC 2780, another is RFC 3427)

I expect that we will have to have a quite formal dicussion
on the "liaison problem" and think it needs to be added to the
problems list (and have been told that it will be noted in the
next version of the ID)

Scot