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

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Steve,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:

> Lets try to zero in on what the problem really is.

Good idea.

> I think that liaison handling (or the lack thereof) is not just a
> problem. It is THE problem.

I disagree.  I think there are two problems, and both are important.

> Does anybody really believe that the
> reason this draft exists in the first place is that there are a
> bunch of individuals going wild trying to change or extend the
> (G)MPLS protocols?

Yes, actually, I do.  Maybe not "going wild", but the necessary
review is not always done to make sure the changes are needed and
in concert with the architecture of the protocols.

> What seems to have generated most of the arguments is the handling
> (or bungling) of the communications process (or lack of process)
> with other SDOs. This is the process we need to fix.

No argument here.

> Dealing with requests from individuals to extend or change the
> protocols might be good to have a process for, but realistically,
> has any individual made such a request yet? Why is this important?

Every ID is a request from an individual.  Every ID is important
(until proven otherwise).

> Now, if we can agree that liaisons are THE problem,

We agree to disagree on that :-)

> - We can start work on a general purpose liaison process to be
> applied across the whole of IETF (revival of one of the POIS*
> working groups?).
> - We could try to develop a pilot process for sub-IP (which is
> where we seem to have a lot of the problems), and take what we
> learn from its implementation to feed into a process that would
> apply to the whole of IETF.

We (you and I) can do little (except write IDs :-)).  The ADs should
give us guidance on how to proceed.  And, from my reading, the
guidance is that the liaison problem should be solved holistically
(not piecemeal in Sub-IP) and in *some other WG*, like the problem
statement WG.

Kireeti.