Subject: Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:52:52 -0500 (EST)

Pete sez:
> I agree. The purpose of the liaison should be to keep the IETF 
> informed about the goings-on of the ITU. Insofar as the actions of 
> any other standards or commercial organization might have a 
> significant impact on the decisions of the working group (e.g., 
> knowledge that a particular company has IPR, or that another 
> standards organization is deploying something that would conflict 
> with a WG proposal), having an official representative of the ITU 
> bring that information is fine.

this is just what was intended here 

the reason behind this at all is that we have had cases of people 
representing to IETF WGs that they know what is going on in an ITU-T 
SG but it turned out that in some cases they did not know and thus 
mislead the listeners about what was going on in the ITU-T - this 
was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect "he 
knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any 
such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG deliberations 
than does any other individual  - but as Pete points out, it can 
be useful to actually know what another group is or is not doing.

Scott

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:14:02 -0600

On 3/5/02 at 10:52 PM -0500, Scott  Bradner wrote:

>this was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect 
>"he knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any 
>such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG 
>deliberations than does any other individual...

I (and I believe Keith) think it is that latter point that needs to 
be explicitly stated in the BCP: Bringing official knowledge to the 
IETF is useful and important, but that does not give the delegate and 
special weight or privilege in the working group deliberations.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:34:23 -0700 (MST)

> From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

> special weight or privilege in the working group deliberations.

Exactly.

Without explicit words limiting the power and authority of such official
representatives, you will have third parties thundering in working
groups that because the ITU representatives are officially sanctioned
by IETF rules, what they say is more important than what anyone else
says.  You will also have WG chairs cutting off debate because ITU
representatives have Spoken.  In other, better run WGs, you will have
endless arguments that because the IETF is now participating in the
ITU (as demonstrated by the existence of the official representatives)
and because there are no IETF words limiting the authority of the
official representatives, whatever the representatives say must matter.
There will be similar endless flamewars after Last Calls in the main
IETF list.

Never mind that it seems to me that the whole idea is based on the
crazy notion that because an ITU representative is official, what the
representative says will be complete and accurate.  People who are
careful to be complete and accurate are complete and accurate, while
others, whether officially designated or not, aren't.  The whole idea
seems based on a naive view of standards committee politics.  I'm
thinking in particular of an infamous case several years ago where an
official representative of one IEEE 802 group represented the results
of the group's deliberation to the upper layer opposite to the clear
voting majority of the group, but consistent with the position of the
representative's employeer.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:10:18 -0500

> special weight or privilege in the working group deliberations.

I'd go as far as to say that the Study Group's opinion doesn't contribute
to group consensus at all (though it may influence the opinion of
WG participants who do contribute to consensus).  And if the delegate
participates in decision-making, he/she should be expected to use 
his/her best personal engineering judgement about what's good for the 
entire Internet - just like any other IETF participant.

It's not just ITU-T I'm worried about - I'm also concerned about the
use of this as a precedent for other kinds of 'representatives'.

Keith

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 23:53:33 -0800

At 10:52 PM -0500 3/5/02, Scott  Bradner wrote:
>this was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect "he
>than does any other individual

At 4:52 PM -0500 3/6/02, John Stracke wrote:
>My point was that I *cannot* double check.
>
>You're right that I still can't double-check someone authorized to speak
>for the ITU; but, if the ITU is careful about whom it authorizes, then
>such people may wind up building a reputation for
>trustworthiness--"they're probably right, or the ITU leadership
>wouldn't've authorized them".  And, if they get it wrong, then there's a
>known person to tie to the rails when the train wreck happens.

It's highly desirable to foster collaboration with other standards 
organizations.  However, what's the point of tying someone to the 
rails after the train wreck?

I, like Keith, am very bothered by the precedent this sets.
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "Credibility," however, is not a quality that can be legislated,
   nor can it be coded.
   -- Lawrence Lessig, "Code And Other Laws of Cyberspace", 1999
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------