Subject: good luck

From: Ed Krol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 06:51:53 -0600 (CST)

I certainly think you were a good choice, and am a little relieved
that you got picked rather than me. :-)

I'll have to go back over my notes because I thought about it a lot
at interview time but one of the things which I thought ought to happen
is to have official liasons with other working groups.  Too often
USV has relied on statistics (get 50 people in a room and someone is likely
to be following a particular topic) to know what was happening in other
working groups.  So that if something truely onerous was going to 
come out in a RFC it would be hit or miss as to whether USV could have
any input over it before it went into draft and became public.

What I thought of doing was to ask for volunteers who would follow a 
particular working group (they are probably doing it anyway) and give
user impact statements back to USV so people could get their two cents in.

I guess to put it in dilbertspeak I was trying to get USV to be more
proactive about issues than reactive (oh my god we need to document this
fiasco).

---

From: Jill Foster <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:18:00 +0000

>user impact statements back to USV so people could get their two cents in.

Excellent idea Ed - to have 2 or 3 nominated people to act as the 2-way
link person for other IETF areas.
Perhaps they could be polled by April prior to an IETF meeting to see what
is likely to come up.

The IESG/WG-chair meetings at IETF were meant to do that - ie alert people
to hot topics and issues - but spreading the load through pro-active link
people is a good suggestion.

Jill

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:08:31 -0800 (PST)

I think the liaison thing is a great idea. I have always thought the the
IETF should have a few "working committees" that continue beyond the life
of any particular working group. These committees would have a number of
task including liaison, maintenance of the institutional memory, and so
on. I specifically suggested such a committee for the terminal room and
while many people said it was a good idea, I have not seen it happen and
I won't be suprised if there will be problems as a result. 

Maybe all (most?) documents should have a "User Documentation
Considerations" section just like they have a "Security Considerations"
section.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen                            |       ||        ||        |
Editor and Publisher                       |       ||        ||        |
Business Development Group                 |      ||||      ||||       |
Tel: +1 408-527-8972                       |  ..:||||||:..:||||||:..   |
e-mail: [email-masked]                      |  C i s c o S y s t e m s  |

See you at INET'98, Geneva, 21-24 July, 1998  http://www.isoc.org/inet98