[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



<regular ietf'er hat on>

Monday, March 3, 2003, 2:26:06 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> 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.

Bingo!

It seems to me that this is the only way to ensure fairness in the
IETF, actually. Once we start introducing any sorts of preferences or
"weights", it may become a too attractive backdoor around the IETF
process.

Also, what does "weight" of a liaison or an ID really mean in a
_consensus_ based organization? That we should suddenly have a worm
and fuzzy feeling about that doc? And how does this "weight" compare
to, for example, the weight of the consensus within the IETF to not do
what's proposed, if that happens?

Alex