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
-------------------------------------------------------------------