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

[Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>]

>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.

Yep.

...
>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.

That makes sense to me.


Since I somehow said, in a casual conversation at the beginning
of the IAB telechat yesterday, that I would do something here,
my suggestion would be to break our feedback (mostly from earlier email
from Geoff and Leslie) into IAB-related issues and IESG-related issues,
to pass the IESG-related issues to the IESG, and to give collective
feedback to the authors about the IAB-related issues (which I think
are relatively simple and  non-controversial)

For the IAB-related issues, I would suggest that the document
be modified with the following changes (as suggested by
Geoff and Leslie):

* liaison -> liaison communication:
Clarify that the document explicitly refers to communications
between the IETF and bodies where there exists a current liaison 
agreement, replacing "liaison" with "liaison communication" in the 
document.

* Formal liaisons only:
Clarify that liaison communications only apply to organizations for
which the IETF haa a formal liaison relationship (approved by the IAB).

* The role of the ID process:
Clarify that liaison communications do not replace the traditional 
ID process when an SDO wants something standardized through the   
IETF process.


For the IESG-related issues to be passed on to the IESG, they
seem to be as follows:

* Process:
We have a painfully-worked-out process for how rough consensus
decisions are made regarding the internet-draft process.  Is this
document as it currently stands sufficient for addressing how rough
consensus decisions are made in responding to liaison communications,
or is something else/additional needed?  (E.g., if the goal of the
document is to ensure that SDOs get replies to their liaison
communications that are authoritative and on-schedule, is this
document sufficient to achieve that purpose?)

* Lines of authority:
Is this document sufficient in identifying who is responsible for
responding to liaison communications, or is something else/additional
needed?

* The role of the Secretariat:
Geoff's suggestion that liaison communications pass through the
IETF Secretariat?

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/