RE: how to deal with liaison statements

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

I find the draft to be stimulating bureaucracy.
Not sure I like that. At the other hand, we've been
terribly bad in handling any liason statements we
got (ones with content).
The content was in fact also presented in various 
ways in CCAMP wg by people and even (individual)
I-Ds were submitted. Basically (my perception) is
that we (IETF, CCAMP) ignored all of it untill a
set of code points were (in my view corretcly)
assigned for their ASON work. And since that happened
we have, we have had extensive flame wars in that
space. I think we could have done better.

Will this liason-handling doc fix everything?
Probably not.
Will it help or improve things?
I would hope so.
Should we accept as is?
probably not. It is a rev 00 I-D.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu]
> Sent: donderdag 13 maart 2003 2:27
> To: fred@cisco.com; sob@harvard.edu
> Cc: iab@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: how to deal with liaison statements
> 
> 
> > We hicks from the hinterlands
> > don't find high falutin' nonsense to be very interesting. 
> 
> :-)
> 
> (I'd rather not judge all otehr SDOs based on teh 
> interactions with Hal :-))
> 
> I think one of the statements that kicked off the discussion
> is http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/ls15-36.htm (which was not
> posted all that fast and that hurt)
> 
> there are a pile of such statements on the statements web page
> that were posetd in jan & feb and in general they seem to have 
> actual contents
> 
> Scott
>