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

[Curtis Villamizar]

In message <4103264BC8D3D51180B7002048400C4501623329 at zhard0jd.europe.nortel.com
>, "Elwyn Davies" writes:
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E1B4.3D0A6710
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi.
> 
> The problem-statement WG is only (nearly) chartered to document the
> perceived problems and attempt to find a set of root causes if possible.  We
> have published a first cut at the problems list
> (draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-00, now available on the I-D site).  
> 
> Although there are a number of problems relating to external perception of
> the IETF, the liaison issue was not much talked about, possibly because the
> contributors were more focused on the internal problems. Accordingly it
> didn't have much of an effect on the root cause problem list - what is
> discussed is the IETF's problem with not clearly setting out its mission,
> and in particular the degree to which it wishes to emulate a more
> conventional SDO.  The problems with liaisons can be seen as a subsidiary
> symptom of this.
> 
> Anyway, the liaison problem (and the rest of the SDO relationships) has been
> forcibly brought to our attention and it looks like it should feature more
> prominently in the root cause problems.
> 
> As regards starting to solve it, Loa believes (G)MPLS needs a solution RSN;
> on the other hand, 'how to solve the general liaison problem' needs to be
> part of the direction which the 'solutions process' piece of our work will
> consider shortly, and it needs to be considerd in the general light of the
> IETF mission (whatever that turns out to be).
> 
> Regards,
> Elwyn Davies
> (editor of draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement)



By all means, move the liason discussion to whatever WG is discussing
problem-issue-statement or form a new WG and discuss the liason issue
there.  Discussion of changes in procedure that would transform the
IETF into something else definitely require a separate WG.

Curtis