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

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:45:15 -0500

>*** Someone will "game" the system, for
>example, to move forward a technical proposal by telling
>each group that "the other group wants this".

One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going to 
act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair checks 
with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|Earth: love it or leave it.                             |
\========================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:56:05 -0500

> with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

This would be a no-brainer, except that it's been asserted already that the
ITU will refuse to give a straight answer to a non-ITU member.  Thus all
the tap-dancing.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:46:07 -0800

> with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

But, as we've established, it's hard to "check with the ITU"
when the liaisons are the ones playing the game; and folks with
an agenda are the ones most likely to volunteer for such roles.

Just as with protocol security, you can design all of the
feedback you want, but there may need to be some kind of "intrusion
detection" to decide if you're being hacked.