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

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@comcast.net>]

Hi Kireeti,

Just responding to your point (e) below. As someone pointed out in some
previous email exchanges (seems like an age ago), when I submitted my I-D
around the June timeframe, the IETF CCAMP WG were not particularly
interested. However, I did work with and gotten quite good feedback
privately. Among the folks were Adrian, Jerry, Dimitrios, Dimitri, Nick,
Greg, Lyndon, Bala, Yangguang. Of course not everyone agreed with some of
the particular solution but I don't think anyone questioned that there were
technical issues with it...

And also as someone pointed out, many of the critical players in the GMPLS
arena were also players in the OIF. I think the root cause is maybe not the
liaison process but the intent of people working in the topic area? Just a
guess...

Thanks
Zhi



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Kireeti
> Kompella
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:26 PM
> To: Stephen Trowbridge
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
>
> > There is no doubt that liaisons CURRENTLY have no more wieght than
> > individual IDs
>
> This might be a fundamental difference between the IETF and
> other SDOs,
> the ITU in particular.  However, that still doesn't mean that this
> policy of the IETF's is wrong.  I happen to think that taking
> everything
> at its own merit rather than considering where it came from
> is the most
> democratic, equal opportunity means of handling it -- but that's a
> personal philosophy, not necessarily echoed by the IETF.
>
> That said, if liaisons truly have lower priority than individual IDs,
> it is more the vehicle (emails, notes posted to the liaison web page,
> etc.) than the source or the content.  One the advice of a
> wise person,
> I have started (belatedly) posting to the CCAMP list that
> such liaisons
> exist.  Note that I don't need to do that for IDs -- the
> authors generally
> do that, and there is a mailing list that one can subscribe for this.
>
> > But it is my opinion that the lack of a liaison process is really
> > the ROOT CAUSE of difficulties like what we saw in January.
>
> If we really do a root cause analysis, it comes down to this (IMO):
> a) CCAMP gets a liaison statement stating that certain changes are
>    requested in the GMPLS specs (doesn't get posted to the
> list, though).
> b) CCAMP doesn't officially respond (mechanisms not in place).
> c) CCAMP WG gets requirements via Zhi's and Osama's drafts.
> d) CCAMP mailing list hosts discussions about whether these
> requirements
>    make sense in the IETF context.
> e) In the interest of quick allocation of code points, these two docs
>    are made Informational, and go through without much review.
> f) Various folks (CCAMP, RSVP, MPLS, ...) are very concerned about the
>    changes made to RSVP and CR-LDP.
>
> (The intent here is not to point fingers, although I've
> already claimed
> my share of the blame.)
>
> I see (b) and (e) as the most serious breakdowns in the process.  The
> GMPLS change doc should help alleviate (e), and hopefully help (a) as
> well.  And if we get started on the liaison doc, that should help (b).
>
> Or we could keep talking :-)
>
> Kireeti.