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

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

At Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:21:20 -0700, James Kempf wrote:
> 
> How about "liason representative"? Otherwise, there's no distinction between
> the liason as relationship and liason as person.

wfm.

> Wrt. the who picks, as Margaret's email cites from IAB charter, IAB or IESG
> can pick.

yeah, it's complicated.  the last time i tried to articulate it, the
words came out something like "the iab negotiates the treaty (in
consultation with the iesg), and the iesg implements the treaty (in
consultation with the iab)".  picking the representitive is more the
latter than the former, so i probably misspoke when i said that it was
an iab job.

> > 3) how do we decide when we have an answer?
> >
> >    this is the point bert just raised, and i think it's a good one.
> 
> I don't think this is so ambiguous. If IETF gets a letter requesting a
> response, then I think it is incumbent upon IETF to answer (modulo a
> communication whose content might suggest to the responsibile parties in
> IETF that not answering might be a better strategy, as you cite below).
> 
> The more pertinent issue, which is what I interpeted Bert's point as, is how
> the response is formulated. Is it formulated through WG concensus or through
> an AD or WG chairs sending a response? I believe, again, this depends on the
> particular situation and needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, with
> IESG management function being exercised as necessary.

i think we're in agreement, just expressing it differently.  we're
both talking about the meta question of what it means for "the ietf"
to decide something.  the ietf has processes by which "the ietf"
answers certain kinds of questions, but this whole discussion is about
dealing with situations in which sdos, for whatever reasons (possibly
quite valid ones) want an answer without using those processes.