The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Feb> msg00149



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

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

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:22:48 -0500
  • cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3(Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2(sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)


It seems to me that Loa's  document simply describes how the IETF works.  As
such, I'm not sure it is even necessary. 

True, many people have  noticed that the IETF is free to  ignore the work of
other standard organizations.  True, the  fact that a particular proposal is
made by another  standards organization does not even  give the proposal any
special weight in the IETF.

I think these are  good things, and the IETF should not  make any changes in
this respect.  Hence I don't think  Loa's draft (if it needs to exist) needs
to change.

Certainly  the  fact  that  some  position  is  articulated  in  a  "liaison
statement"  should not  give  it any  special  weight.  The  fact that  some
position is supported  by "a threshold number of  vendors and SPs" shouldn't
give it any special weight either.