Re: how to deal with liaison statements

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> Which makes the concept of *sending* liaisons a back-burner item. 

I think there are times when this is a useful thing to do

4 examples
	telling the ITU-T that the IETF decided to not do more
	stds track work on CR/LDP (useful because some 
	SDOs have adopted CR/LDP and would be looking to
	the IETF to maintain it, telling them that we will not
	is a good thing to do)

	telling 3GPP that we have a problem with how they are abusing SIP
	and why - putting the issues on electronic paper means
	that its is far easoier or 3GPP to process our complaints

	telling ITU-T SG7 that their IP over SONET/SDH was broken
	and could not be implemented by router vendors and that the
	ITU-T should permit vendors to support wherever the
	ITU came up with but also should allow support of the IETF
	PPP over SONET was good - in teh end it meant that the ITU
	technology could actually be implemented and that
	the IETF technology was also OK to use - good when 
	some governments weer sayingthat they would only permit the
	ITU technology to be used (e.g. China)

	the exchange of liaison statements about the MPLS OAM
	helped clarify the situation and resulted in an acceptable
	solution

I do not think its common but I do not think it shoudl be too far on the
back burner - it may be that all we need is already in rfc 3356 (at
least for the ITU)

Scot