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

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501062F74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
> Inline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: donderdag 27 februari 2003 10:09
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Scott W Brim; ccamp@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Bert,
> > 
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 
> > > No of course NOT. Many Liasons will want an answer.
> > > So we need a process to follow up and to track if a timely
> > > response has been (or will be) send.
> > 
> > Is the IETF process for replying to liaison statements (and of
> > generating them) written down, say in some RFC?  If so, could you
> > send me a pointer?
> > 
> Unfortunately, I don't think the process for that has been defined.
> That is why I said that "we need a process..."
> We do not have it yet (I think... at least I do not know it either).
> I think we were all just hoping people would take responsibility and
> do the right things... but as we know that is how things fall through
> the cracks.
> 
> > > But the Liasons communication between ITU and CCAMP/MPLS has not
> > > been going smoothly so far (even though we had good intentions).
> > > Responses have not gone out in time (or in some cases at all).
> > 
> > I'll take full responsibility for that.
> > 
> W.r.t. CCAMP I will share some of the responsibility too. I should 
> also have kept a better eye on it.
> 
> Bert
> > Thanks,
> > Kireeti.


To be honest, I think there is a process.

IETF recognizes individuals, not organizations.  A liason may present
a liason statement in an IETF meeting or send it to a WG (or other)
mailing list but like any other type of organization the individual is
recognized, not the organization.  That same person is free to take
impressions back to their organization.

The IETF believes in running code and rough consensus.  Too much
standardization occurs without running code (and preferably also at
least trial deployment) and too much gets standardized committee style
and ends up not working (quite often protocols can't be deployed
because they don't scale, often predicted but the standards body
marched forward despite technical objections related to scaling).  If
the ITU wants to work that way fine.  At least the IETF wants to make
sure there are clear requirements before pursuing much effort toward
standardization in advance of running and deployed code.  The
chng-proc draft clarifies this and puts procedure in place toward that
end.  It is also worth noting that if you have deployed code you have
good evidence that there was a requirement and there should be
empirical evicence related to the solution's ability to meet the
requirement.

Curtis