Re: how to deal with liaison statements

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

At 02:42 PM 3/14/2003 -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> But, as currently phrased, the draft implies that we invite communication 
> by liaison (not Internet-Draft and discussion) which a) isn't the right 
> tone (as far as I understand how we work) and b) could become a pretty 
> serious denial of service, in that liaisons are priority interrupts.
Hence my proposal that a liaison becomes, in effect, a thread on the alias, 
which may (if requested) culminate in a reply to the sender. I don't think 
it is unreasonable to ask the working group chair to reply by a deadline, 
if the minimal reply is the one-liner "I cannot give you a substantive 
response by that deadline". It is very unreasonable for the sender of 
anything to anyone to assume that it will automatically result in any given 
action beyond getting a courteous reply.

I agree with you that assuming the IETF will issue liaisons to other 
organizations is silly; whether or not it is a useful tool, we don't do 
that, or at least we don't very often. I don't see a problem in defining a 
procedure that could be used if someone chose to do this; I just don't 
expect anyone to use it.

Which makes the concept of *sending* liaisons a back-burner item.