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

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

I'll agree with those concerns

---
>From leslie@thinkingcat.com  Fri Aug 15 19:01:15 2003
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:59:10 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
CC: fred@cisco.com, sjtrowbridge@lucent.com, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt
References: <200308152254.h7FMsqcA002469@newdev.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



One really quick reply -- I think it's helpful to note that my
concerns are taken from the perspective of "a random SDO walking
up to IETF documentation and determining how to interface with us".

I.e., while these guidelines might describe what exists today in
our relationship with the ITU, my concern is that they fit a lot
of *other* models, too, many of which we would be less happy with.
It would be, therefore, helpful to tighten the scope.

The other distinction that I think could be made clearer is: 
what sort of approach to take when an SDO is giving us information
about *their* standards (i.e., for which they are authoritative)
as opposed to offering general technical comment on our developing
standards.  It is primarily in the latter case that I think the
proposal, as it stands, could generate a denial of service.

Leslie.

Scott Bradner wrote:
> 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
> 


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
     Yours to discover."
                                -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------