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

From: "Varma, Eve L (Eve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:56:08 -0500

Hi Curtis,

I concur the second issue is the key one.  However, I don't view it as orthogonal
as there are some interpretations (including yours ;-)) that liaison internet drafts
from another SDO should also be handled as individual submissions.

Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:49 PM
To: Varma, Eve L (Eve)
Cc: [email-masked]'; George Newsome; Stephen Trowbridge; Loa
Andersson; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 

> Your comment re "legitimate requirements" has everything to do with
> the relatio nship with other SDOs, which is currently implicitly
> coupled into the liaison discussions.  My concern , as is also
> expressed in Steve Trowbridge's earlier comments, is related to the
> Gatekeeper role that you are appearing to advocate.
>  
> For individual contributor drafts coming in, it's quite appropriate to
> evaluate requirements and determine if they are legitimate.  It's a
> different case when another SDO, responsible for a non-IP applications
> domain, has established a set of requirements related to that domain.
>  
> Eve

If we remove all mention of liason, then the document applies to all
individual submissions.  You are not arguing that this is a bad thing
for individual submissions.

A second orthogonal issue which this draft does not address is whether
liason internet-drafts would be given special consideration or would
continue to be handled as individual submissions.

If the mention of liasons is removed and there are no further issues,
we can move forward with this draft.  [Then discuss the liason issue
later and preferably on some other list.]

Curtis

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:27:47 +0100

Cutis and Eve,

I think we have come a full circle, now Curtis is suggesting that I 
remove something
that is not in the draft ;). I don't discus liasions, simply because it 
was and is
my opinion that they are not in the picture then it comes to handling 
changes to the
(g)mpls protocols.

Even though they are good for other things ;)

/Loa

Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>In message <[email-masked]
>om>, "Varma, Eve L (Eve)" writes:
>  
>
>>Hi Curtis,
>>
>Eve,
>Correction.  There are not "some interpretations".  Liaison internet
>drafts from another SDO may be either submitted as informational or
>they are treated as individual submissions.
>
>That issue is not relevant to the draft under discussion if Loa
>removes any mention of liasons.
>
>Curtis
>
>
>  
>

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:07:28 -0500

Eve,

Curtis