[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

At 06:37 PM 8/15/2003 -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote:
The IAB did review and discuss draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt.
The upshot is that there were some comments and significant concerns that individual IAB folks (myself, Geoff) found, that many other IAB members seemed to feel resonated with their own.

I've included those comments below, and cc'ed the IESG as Geoff's
comments points out some of this is theirs to define.
I added the IAB, as if this is their comments I think they deserve to be included in the dialog.

this seems to provide little guidance on how we might go about determining the appropriate party (so that liaising bodies can have some sense of our "API" as it were). Rather, in some way seems to be an elaboration of a new (and separate) communication channel, without solving those basic problems.
Was it intended to tell the IAB how to select organizations to form liaisons with and select, by IETF-defined processes that are ignorant of and do not respect corresponding SDO process, what people may send them? If so, I completely missed that point. I thought we were describing a communication channel.

By the way, that does seem a trifle one-sided. We can tell them how they are to talk with us, but they can't tell us how we talk with them? Am I the only one who sees a mismatch here?

Would the IAB *like* guidance on how to select folks to liaise with? I think if I tried to tell the IAB who to liaise with, it would tell me to stuff my opinions somewhere uncomfortable.

It seems to me that, in this context, the appropriate party in the other organization is seldom our choice. In the ITU's case, for example, the defined procedure for exchanging liaisons involves a human being that lives in Geneva and is designated by title. My mental model has been that this person or set of persons is identified to us by the peer organization, and the secretariat issues them the necessary electronic credentials, once the IAB has stated - following whatever process it deems appropriate - that it wants to have a liaison-exchange relationship with the organization. I can say that in formal words in the draft if it makes life easier for you.

2.1.6 Purpose:
   While others are possible, a liaison generally has one of three
   purposes, and will clearly state its purpose using one of these
   labels:

There are 4 labels listed (including "In Reply").

typo. I added the fourth, and forgot to update the word "three".


2.2 Addressee Responsibilities

[snip]


   Liaisons are always important to the body that sent them. Having
   arrived at the appropriate body, the liaison may be more or less
   important to the addressee depending on the contents of the liaison
   and the expertise of the sender. If the liaison seeks to influence
   the direction of a working group's development, it should get the
   same consideration that any temporary document receives. The working
   group chair may request the sender's contacts to make their case to
   the IETF working group in the same manner and on the same basis that
   an internet draft author makes his case.

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.
This entire draft opens that door.

Since the IAB - you - asked me to work with Steve to write a liaison statement exchange procedure, which is a mechanism which by definition enables another SDO, any SDO the IAB has so licensed, to place something on any IETF person's plate, that he didn't agree to, with a time line that he didn't agree to, I understood that the IAB had decided that communication via non-IETF procedures was something it had agreed to. If the IAB has not agreed to this, I will cease work on the liaison statement management draft forthwith.

Steve's defense of same has been "but all the SDOs do this; it is how SDOs communicate with each other. If you don't like the action item or the date, reply that you don't like it or shift it to someone else."

I.e., I'm not entirely sure how we made the leap from "business letter" analogy to something that the IETF WG will consider as seriously as an I-D (for which we have crafted management processes over the last N years).
I'll let Steve defend that.
As it stands, this seems like a large step back from that -- why try to figure out the Internet-Draft process, when it's possible to stick to the more familiar (for some SDO's) liaison format and liaison relationship style?
yes, you are correct. The process you asked me to contribute to in fact says "I'm tired of posting internet drafts. Can't you just accept my Word 2.0 documents that are readable only on proprietary applications? Everyone else does..."

BTW, what are the expected results?
The frustration of other SDOs, and specifically ITU SG 15, is that they send us liaisons and we don't reply in a manner that they understand. They would like us to do so.



Since I participated in this effort at your request, I understood that the effort was something you supported. It is clear that it is not. I await your further instructions.