Subject: [CCAMP] Responding to two incoming liaisons from SG15

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:40:35 +0100

Working Groups,

I intended to send the mail below to the wg chairs, the liaison
managers and the AD's, and then sending a little short and more
to the point mail to the wg's; but I slipped and sent to the
pwe3 working group instead of the chairs, so I won't bother sending
that shorter mail to the mpls and ccamp groups. You'll have to do
with what I sent to the chairs ;).

Pleae see the mail below.

/Loa

We have two new liaisons from SG15, one on p2mp and one on linear
protection. Scott has distributed these liaisons to PWE3 and CCAMP.

There has been a few mail threads discussing how to respond to the
liaisons (without even really getting down to the technical issues).

The dead line for both liaisons are June 1st.

As before we have Scott (in his role as MPLS liaison manager)
coordinating the activities needed to send responses. John should
be second in this work. I've also included Eric O on this mail
since he has a documented interest in at least the

What is need is something like this:

1. Make sure we have the right people involved for each liaison,
    e.g. the authors of the MPLS-TP P2MP Framework for the p2mp
    liaison, and the authors of RFC6378.

2. Go through the liaisons and decide what points we need to respond
    to. As much as possible break these points out and send one liaison
    per issue.
    Scott - needs to keep us updated about these points and we need to
    agree on them.

3. If we can say that the some of the points are questions for
    clarification or informative, we can send them right away without
    polling the wg's for consensus.

4. Identify what we need to have wg consensus for; and which wg's.

5. Set appropriate dead lines, but also make sure that we don't need
    to spend valuable cycles around IETF meetings.

6. As much as possible keep the responses to "Yes, we see your point,
    would be nice if you could put this into a draft!" or "This is not
    an issue, it is taken care of but the following wg document(s)!"
    "Please use the IETF process to progress these issues!"
    We don't want to set ourselves up to write other new drafts than
    those we are directly interested in, we have a limited number of
    cycles.

Workable? (Yes, you are supposed to respond!)

/Loa
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
MPLS Expert                                 [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64