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

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:31:12 -0800

Hi,

Can I ask a clarifying question regarding liaisons?  The
issue revolves around making extensions to GMPLS.  Is
it the view that such extensions must be generated 
through Internet Drafts, and cannot be through
liaisons?

It sounds like people may be assuming that liaisons are
always providing background information or requesting
information, when on occasion a liaison may be requesting
a change or action.

BTW, regarding responses to liaisons, the A-D may or may
not be the proper source for a response, but the knowledge
for putting together the response would typically reside
within a particular WG, I believe.  One problem is that
you don't have the time within an IETF meeting to assign
a "stuckie" (to use the new term) to write a response ;o)

Cheers,

Lyndon

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:20:24 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, "Ong,
> a "stuckie" (to use the new term) to write a response ;o)

The way you initiate action within the IETF is to submit an internet
draft.  The liason response from the IETF should simply be to send a
copy of rfc2026 and invite participants of the other forum to
participate in the IETF process.

Curtis