Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

there are a number of different issues raised - it may be better
to not hit them all at once so I'll comment on the ones that seem
to need comment one by one

> This seems to open the door to suggesting to other SDOs that they
> don't need to interact with the IETF the same way as all individual
> participants of the IETF -- through I-Ds.

I disagree that "all individual participants of the IETF" communicate with 
I-Ds

fwiw - I see two rather different cases
	1/ a note that says 'you might wantto look at X' or
	   'just to let you know the X SDO SG 3 is working on that
	   topic' or 'if you use value X for varialble Y it will 
	   be compatable with what we are doing'

	2/ here is a proposal for technology we would like you to 
	   consider

I do not think that its reasonbable to insist that the other SDOs use
I-Ds for #1 - these sorts of things are normally done in the 
IETF with messages to mailing lists

for #2 the normal way is with I-Ds if the idea is for the WG to
do something with the text - but its also not that uncommon to
get someone sending a URL to a list and suggesting that the WG
folk take a look at this paper by Craig.

this particular assertion has been made before (tell them to use I-Ds)
because we do
	1/ I don't think "we do" for most of the cases this would
	   deal with
	2/ insisting on I-Ds sounds like an effective to make sure the
	   IETF working groups stay uninformed about what others
	   (in other SDOs and researchers) are doing

note that RFC 3356 (interaction with the ITU) says:
3.3.2 ITU-T to IETF

   A Study Group or Working Party may send texts of draft new or revised
   Recommendations, clearly indicating their status, to the IETF as
   contributions in the form of Internet Drafts.  Internet Drafts are
   IETF temporary documents that expire six months after being
   published.  The Study Group or Working Party must decide that there
   is a benefit in forwarding them to the IETF for review, comment and
   potential use.  Terms of reference for Rapporteur Group meetings may
   authorize Rapporteur Groups to send working documents, in the form of
   Internet Drafts, to the IETF.

   In these cases, the document editor would be instructed to prepare
   the contribution in Internet Draft format (in ASCII and optionally
   postscript format as per [RFC2223]) and submit it to the Internet
   Draft editor (email internet-drafts@ietf.org).  Alternatively, the
   Study Group, Working Party or Rapporteur Group could agree to post
   the document on a web site and merely document its existence with a
   short Internet Draft that contains a summary and the document URL.
   The URL can point to a Word document as long as it is publicly     
   available and with the understanding that it will not be eligible for
   publication as an RFC in that format.

so the intent is not to say that I-Ds are not a good thing, they are just
not the only thing

Scott