[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: you OK with something like this?]



IAB, IESG,

A couple of messages from Scott attached, with permission.

The basic issue is about creating a working framework for
carrying out joint work where appropriate.

Initial concerns raised when I floated the notion on yesterday's
IAB call were that this had unsuccessful outcomes in cases
such as MEGACO -- you'll see Scott's rebuttal in note #2.


Scott, does the proposed joint committee sound similar in intent
to the W3C-IETF coordinating committee?  That seems to work
reasonably well (when we pay attention to our action items...)
My concern in reading the description (and name, "Single Document
Coordinating Committee") is that it implies that the group has
binding effects on IETF or ITU work processes.  (Unlike the
W3C-IETF coordinating committee, in which issues are discussed,
but it's clear Tim Berners-Lee doesn't get to immediately
flush proposed URI schemes, for example).   Even though
I expect it's not your intention, mis-interpretations by
later folks using the arrangement could be painful, and
best avoided by clear description of the roles here and now,
IMO.

Leslie.
--- Begin Message --- 
>From garyfishman@lucent.com  Tue Oct 14 15:30:08 2003
From: "Fishman, Gary (Gary)" <garyfishman@lucent.com>
To: "'sob@harvard.edu'" <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: TSAG and IETF
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:30:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Scott,

Time marches on and it is almost going to pass us by.  We were going to do something for the next TSAG meeting on how IETF and ITU-T could develop a single document that both agree to as a standard/Recommendation.  Given the lack of attention on working out a detailed procedure, and my aversion to detailed procedures unless really, really necessary - can I propose the following:

 - we submit a contribution to TSAG reaffirming the desire to permit creation of a single-document that is approved by both bodies
 - we propose that detailed procedures at this point in time is premature and that a practical example be used to gain some experience first
 - the Cooperation and Coordination Group of TSAG identify candidate subject(s) to try out a cooperative process, in conjunction with the ITU-T SG chairmen at TSAG
 - first option for a process is where the work is done in one of the groups, with cooperation and direct involvement of people from the other group
   (I think this could include ping-ponging a document between the groups when necessary, joint meetings when/if convenient, sending of liaison reps to each other's groups, ...) 
 - IETF and ITU-T management to create a Single Document Coordinating Committee (SDCC?  We could come up with a sexier name) of about half-dozen people, such as reps from the IETF WG, from the relevant IETF management body, IETF editor group, ITU-T SG, TSAG, TSB.  The role of this group would be to address procedural issues as they come up, not to address technical issues.
- report to meetings of IESG (would that be the right group?) and TSAG on progress and/or issues for resolution.

What do you think?  TSAG meets on 10-14 November, by the way.


Hope all is well.  

Gary

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
there is a misunderstaning

we (Fishman & I) both know the megaco case very well and
have no intention to repeate it

I expect the outcome of any effort of this type would be
a clearer way to discuss overlapping work to come up with
one of three ways forward

	IETF hold pen - interested ITU people work in IETF WG
		this is how internet fax happened
	ITU hold pen - interested IETF people work in ITU SG
		I don't't have example of this - MPLS OAM not quite
		an example
	we both do our own thing 
		SIP vs H.323

Fishman nor I think that there is an option for a joint WG
which is what megaco was

no problem with sending it to the iesg/iab but I'd like to
be in teh dicusssion loop  (can forward this note also)

--- End Message ---