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