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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: maandag 27 januari 2003 8:22
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: 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.
> 
But in many cases (specifically the ITU cases that were targeted
at CCAMP and/or SUBIP area), all we have done  is record them on 
the ietf web page, assigned a responsible, and that I think was it.

> I think it's important that we keep track of who's in charge 
> at any given time, and what we think is needed.

I tend to agree

> 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?
> 
Well, when ITU sends something to CCAMP for example... who is
then the formal liason on our side? Scott? Well, then he gets
a lot of additional things to track.

In any event, I do not think that it is clear who is 
responsible for all the statements and who needs to do what
and by when. Certainly there is no trigger system that alerts
us (or whoever) if deadlines pass by

Bert
>                           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
> >
> >
> 
>