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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

W.r.t.

> At Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:31:23 +0200, Bert Wijnen wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> bonus fun in cases where there's reasonable disagreement on what the
> question means or even on whether the question is well-formed.
> 

Let me add something here.
At the last IETF meeting I wondered (again) why the ITU Liason
person in the CCAMP WG was reading (literally, word by word) his
slides. When I discussed this again with an ITU person (I forget
who it was this time, possibly Steve TRowbrisge), the answer was:

  He MUST do that, because that text is the AUTHORITATIVE text that
  was literally approved by the ITU-T SG (I think it was SG15 in
  this case).

So... they also have to go through a very difficult process to 
ensure that the statements are authoritative.
Imagine we have to get to that point... it would mean that we
need to do IETF Last Call on such liasison statements or responses,
or at least WG Last Calls. Does that not sound as heavy weight?

Bert