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

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:22:58 -0500

> 3.2.2 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF
> 
>    ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to
>    attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking
>    authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular
>    Rapporteur Group). 

This seems rather at odds with the tradition that IETF participants are
individuals who represent their own technical judgement rather than 
that of some other organization.  

I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by
such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not 
considered in determining WG consensus.  The last thing we need is
to have delegates from other organizations given more consideration 
in IETF WGs than the technical judgement of individual IETF participants.

Keith

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:42:52 -0600

On 3/5/02 at 1:22 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

>considered in determining WG consensus.

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. That's very much the same as when an 
area director, with their "area director hat" on, gives a WG guidance 
like, "The IESG is not going to let that document through without 
mentioning security". However, like the AD, the ITU delegate should 
have no more weight on consensus decisions than anyone else in the 
working group.

I'm very much with Keith that this needs to be spelled out in this section.

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

---

From: Amardeo Sarma <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:29:25 +0100 (CET)

.. the intention as I see it is to ensure that no misunderstandings arise 
because someone claims something is an "ITU-T view" when in fact it is not. I 
believe it is of high value to all sides to know when someone is stating his or 
her personal view, and when someone is giving reliable information about the 
status in an entity of an organisation. The same is of course of great value in 
the reverse direction.

Amardeo Sarma, also ITU-T SG17 Co-Chair

> I'm very much with Keith that this needs to be spelled out in this

------------------------
Amardeo Sarma
NEC Network Laboratories
[email-masked]
------------------------

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:38:20 -0800

No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for 
sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or 
working documents. If I stand up (physically or virtually) in an IETF 
meeting and say "the ITU-T is doing such and such", you can either believe 
me or double check with the ITU. But the benefit remains that I stood up 
and brought your attention to the topic. I don't need to be an authorized 
ITU-T representative to do that. And I'll double check anything an 
authorized ITU-T representative says as well. So I don't see any benefit to 
this provision.