[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Fwd: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt]
The biggest potential issue I see is that it is not so
clear how we define a "consensus based" or an "authoritative"
answer back from a WG to another SDO.
It is a similar issue (in my view) as how we decide who can
be an official IETF liaison to some other SDO at one of their
meetings or such.
I think that I should put this on the IESG agenda for the
next telechat, to see if we have any serious issues/concerns
as the IESG.
Let me know if that is what the IAB wants me to do.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie@thinkingcat.com]
> Sent: maandag 25 augustus 2003 23:31
> To: iesg@ietf.org; iab@ietf.org
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt]
>
>
>
> [Dropping the doc authors for the moment.]
>
> I feel that I have said plenty at this point, and I'm not
> particularly interested in carrying this on as a personal
> critique of the document. At least one of: there are real problems to
> be solved (in which case I think the IESG has something to say,
> too); the IAB thinks publishing this document would be
> dangerous (in which case other IAB members are welcome to
> step up and say which parts of my comments they agreed with);
> there is no problem here, and we should stop wasting everyone's
> time.
>
> Leslie.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt
> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:15:33 -0700
> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
> CC: Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>,
> Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, iab@ietf.org
> References:
> <5.2.0.9.2.20030817164939.053b0f30@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com>
> <3F40384A.4060002@thinkingcat.com> <3F410895.1040501@lucent.com>
>
> OK, so what I get from this ongoing dialog is that
>
> (a) you want the ID process mentioned for things other SDOs
> want standardized.
> (b) the IAB is indeed willing to receive documents from other
> SDOs in their
> format when their liaison statements are referring to
> their documents;
> they
> don't have to put those documents in I-D form.
> (c) the IESG is going to send text regarding their concerns.
>
> What I remain befuddled about is the formality of the interface.
>
> What Stephen tells us the other SDOs specifically want is a formal
> structure such as is described in the document, however
> implemented. They
> have tried the statements@ietf.org process and find that it
> doesn't produce
> results (not just "doesn't produce on a schedule", but
> "doesn't produce
> results at all"). What he asked for in the draft sent to the IAB last
> winter and from which I started included what, at least to
> me, is a fair
> level of administrate manual process. I changed the manual
> nature of the
> process requested to a web process designed to elicit the
> results they
> requested; the steps are the same, what differs is the tool
> or lack of it.
>
> Your key objection was that you didn't like the formality of
> the process -
> you didn't like the fact that when someone sends you a
> letter, they expect
> you to reply to it, and they might want the reply by a certain date.
>
> Can you tell us what you want done with this? Don't take this
> as flip; I am
> seriously asking a question here. If your answer is "I want
> you to say
> 'send the liaison statement to statements@ietf.org, and if
> we're in the
> mood we might reply'", I think Stephen's position will be
> something along
> the lines of "this is a waste of time; I will never get
> anywhere trying to
> communicate with the IETF, and will feel justified in ignoring it and
> attempting to replace it as an organization for the development of
> standards". Those aren't his words, they are what I think I
> would say in
> his position. If your answer is "I don't like the proposed
> process, and I
> have another process that I guarantee the IETF will reply
> to", I think
> we're all ears. If you're willing to work with the proposed
> process, but
> want tweaks, by all means let us know what should change.
>
> But understand that the objective here is not to send
> documents to the
> IETF. It is to get replies from the IETF that are
> authoritative, and get
> them on a schedule. Apart from that, there is no point to
> sending liaison
> statements. And the ITU feels that it is not getting
> authoritative replies
> on a schedule.
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Reality:
> Yours to discover."
> -- ThinkingCat
> Leslie Daigle
> leslie@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>