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

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

These make sense to me.

I also think it might be desirable to revisit that part of the IAB charter
that describes how liason representatives are appointed.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sally Floyd" <floyd@icir.org>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: 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.
>
> 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/
>
>