[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to handle Liasons and Input/Output from/to other bodies

I think that perhaps liaison statements need more process, but only some of the time does the buck stop with a WG chair.....

- some liaison statements warrant a thank-you note and nothing else
- some liaison statements warrant a reply
- of those, some can be replied to by the liaison or the AD,
saying "yes, this and this is going on, you need to be aware,
or participate, or we think it's a bad idea, or..."
- some can be replied to by the working group chair, telling
the requester what's going on, and that the WG has been told
the content of the liaison (and usually ignored it.... )
- some require real action to be undertaken by a WG.

I think it's important that we keep track of who's in charge at any given time, and what we think is needed.
It would, in some sense, be logical that in the case where we have a formal liaison to the other organization, the liaison be charged with keeping track - but are the liaisons ready to do that?

Harald


--On 26. januar 2003 16:29 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

The discussion on CR-LDP extension for ASON (by
OIF and ITU) I think have uncovered an issue that
we may want to tackle. And that is, that when we
received communications from (for example) ITU SG15
targeted at CCAMP WG, then that is nicely listed on
out liason statements web pages, but we have no process
in place to force the WG to actually handle the
statement and send a response (if such is requested).

I understand that it means extra work (sometimes it
is outside the WG charter, but so are so many individual
I-Ds that get targeted at WGs). Currently it seems
that statements from other bodies are often just put
on the web pages, and that is it.

Can we/do we want to change/add to the process to mandate
that WG chairs handle such statements in time?

Thanks,
Bert