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

Re: FWD: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF(mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Servicesover MPLS)"

To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FWD: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF(mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Servicesover MPLS)"
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:28:26 +0200
In-reply-to: <200307091332.h69DW6u11404@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
References: <200307091332.h69DW6u11404@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>

Yes, we should, and we have some up there already.
Suggested rule: If the liaison to the organization says it's a liaison statement, it goes up. I think we don't have to be more formal than that.

Harald

--On 9. juli 2003 09:32 -0400 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:

Question: we currently post liaison statements on our web page. Should
we be doing anything similar with responses we send back? In theory,
I'd say yes, but things could get tricky deciding when a response is
formal/worthy enough of posting on the web page.

References:
- FWD: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
  - From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Financials of the IETF - 2002 figures and 2003 budget
Next by Date: RE: rfc 3280 interoperability testing
Previous by thread: FWD: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
Next by thread: RE: RE: Liaison statement from ITU-T Q.11/13 to IETF (mobileip, mpls WGs) on "Draft Recommendation Y.MIPoMPLS (Mobile IP Services over MPLS)"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread