Hi Christian, This is one of the processes within the ITU-T standards body. The documents that is submitted into these documents can have multiple levels of "status". I'm not sure what the process is within the UK, but I have some idea of the process within the USA. Maybe Stephen Trowbridge or others more familiar with the procedures can comment (I typically try to stay away from these and stick my head into the technical stuff).
The lowest status is that a document is sent by a company. In this case only that company is known to support this. A document may also have multiple company names as contributors, in which case these companies are active proponents. The next level status is a country document. A country document (e.g., USA or UK) means that the document has undergone a national standards process, and that ALL the companies represented within that country will support the position stated by the document. This is of course much different from the IETF process, where all documents are by individual basis (theoretically it should not even have company affiliation but only represents the views of the individuals in the author list, but of course practically most people who attends and submits documents are actually representing a company view)...please don't flame me, just giving an observation based on my limited exposure to the IETF process... Hope this helps Zhi -----Original Message----- From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:17 AM To: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Scott Bradner (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Stephen Shew (E-mail); Lyndon Ong (E-mail); Malcolm Betts (E-mail); Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); Alan McGuire (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dimitrios Pendarakis (E-mail) Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational Lin Zhi-Wei You mention a UK national position paper. Can you give me the references and what made this "national"? many thanks, Christian de Larrinaga > A clear U.K. national position paper was >contributed to the meeting currently underway >(delayed contribution 483), supporting that all >three of the ASON signaling Recommendations >should be put for consent at this meeting. >Hope this helps... >Zhi
