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

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Curtis,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> > Kireeti, if we can agree that we have two problems and from the perspective
> > of an external SDO they are closely coupled.  One way of moving forward
> > would be to develop two IDs in parallel.  The first based on the existing
> > anderson-mpls-g-change-proc, modified to state explicitly that requests for
> > changes by external SDOs are exempt from this process.  The second draft
> > would address the liaison process.  The key issue with changes requested by
> > external SDOs is that in general they will be based on the desire to apply
> > (G)MPLS protocols to connection management of connection oriented circuit
> > switched (COCS) networks for the benefit of COCS clients - i.e. to
> > applications that are well outside the "normal" IETF problem space. To keep
> > the activity  focussed (as suggested in some earlier emails) perhaps we
> > could limit the scope to the sub ip area only (at least initially).  I think
> > that Steve Trowbridge in an earlier email (copy below) provided a good
> > summary of the objectives of the liaison process.
>
>
> This is just fine except there is no concensus either way on Steve's
> opinion that the role of liasons should be changed.

Going further, I don't think consensus in the CCAMP WG (or even in
the sub-IP area) will change this -- there *are* some things in the
IETF that don't work by consensus.

> Therefore Loa's draft should not mention exclusion of liasons, because
> changing the liason relationship is not the current intent, and
> because the liason relationship will be addressed separately as
> suggested by Scott Bradner.

Agreed.

FYI: a group of us are working on a liaison draft, mainly to put the
issue in front of the IESG.  *I* don't envision this as a sub-IP pilot,
nor do I see this coming of the the CCAMP WG (nor the ITU-T) -- it will
be an individual submission from a bunch of concerned individuals.
Then again, it's a group of us, and we need to come to consensus :-)

Kireeti.