Re: you OK with something like this?]

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

I'm not entirely clear what the problem with Megaco was other than that it
required lots of co-ordination, but I think the solutions proposed by Scott
(either one or the other SDO take the lead) makes sense.

Incidently, we are facing a similar issue currently w.r.t. IEEE 802.11 and
CAPWAP.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
To: <iab@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; "Scott Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:48 AM
Subject: [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.
>