Subject: RE: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF- ...

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:27:01 -0400 (EDT)

see RFC 3563 for one agreement

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:42:20 -0700

> see RFC 3563 for one agreement

And since it would seem a bit useful to make liaison information readily 
available, I was happy to fine:

    <http://ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html>

It seems to cover the topic rather thoroughly.  it looks as if it links to the 
formal agreements, no?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:47:30 -0700

Scott this is specific to one small area in IS-IS routing (the JTC) - what I
am looking for a broad agreement type MOU. I don't think one exists.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:57:18 -0700

Dave - this really says nothing about what a liaison does or what their
responsibilities are. The IS-IS document talks to some extent about the
processes but the roles are still unclear.

My point was that the liaison is a businesses development role really. Its
about how IETF processes and IPs are bridged and promulgated into other
works as the basis of fact for our areas of expertise.

I also see this role as a member of the brand-protection team, another thing
the IETF might think about bringing on board.

T.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:54:19 -0400

> see RFC 3563 for one agreement

Scott, there are lots of agreements at the WG-WG level.  There
are even a few agreements creating and identifying IETF Category
A liaisons to a few selected ISO/IEC JTC1 SCs (all of which are
readily available, as Dave pointed out).

Those arrangements are not MOUs, they are either Cooperative
Agreements, Joint Development Agreements, or Category (usually
A) Liaison Agreements, each of which has a very specific
definition in the JTC1 Directives which are, themselves
available via ISO's Web site at http://www.iso.ch/ with variant
details being documented either in RFCs (typically paralleling
ISO/IEC JTC1 numbered documents) or on our web site.

But we have never had a liaison relationship, or document
recognition agreement of any other type, at the "ISO" or ISO/IEC
JTC1 levels as far as I know and documents like 3563 certainly
don't change that.  Indeed, requests for such a relationship,
when we made them, were repeatedly turned down.

More below.

--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 15:20 -0700 "Fleischman, Eric"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> Please remember with me back to the mid-1990s when ISO sent
> official liaison reps to the IETF. The way I recall (perhaps
> incorrectly) things working back then was that from the ISO
> perspective, these were official liaison reps formally
> sanctioned according to ISO processes but from our perspective
> they were technical people representing themselves just like
> anybody else in the IETF. 

Nope, never happened.  Please forgive me for splitting hairs,
but, if one is going to ask questions or make legalistic
statements about these things (or demand to see legal
agreements) some very fine distinctions are actually important.
>From an ISO perspective (under either the ISO rules or the
slightly different Directives for ISO/IEC JTC1) liaisons are
both formal and symmetric.  There is no such beastie as an
official liaison rep to us where there is no mutual (and formal)
liaison relationship.  

Now, before we both get really confused, two other things
happened then, and happen now:

(1) There are specific liaison relationships between the IETF
(or IETF Areas or WGs) and various ISO subgroups, almost all, if
not all, of them, subgroups of JTC1.  With the exception of a
very small number of agreements about how specific technology
developments would be pursued, of which RFC 3563 is an example,
all of these agreements are the same: to a first-order
approximation they create two-way liaison arrangements, we (for
some value of "we") get to look at their working documents and
they get to look at ours (not that the latter amounts to much,
since we don't consider our working documents confidential), and
we both agree that, if one group says something to the other,
the other group will pay attention (although not necessarily
agree or act).  There are no such agreements with ISO, or with
JTC1: they get requested and worked out one ISO TC or
Subcommittee, and one JTC1 Subcommittee (or occasionally WG) at
a time.   3563 is just such an agreement: it is between IETF and
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on a specific topic and program of work
(although I think we still have a Category A liaison with SC6 as
well).

(2) Lots and lots of informal arrangements happen, with no
formal agreements between the entities involved.  We've tended
to encourage those and they have tended to work well, in part
because they tend to operate at the technical/engineering layer
while formal liaisons at the ISO SC level and above tend to
involve strong doses of the political layer.   The IAB sometimes
has cause to get concerned about people starting sentences with
"I represent the IETF and..." or with "The IETF believes...",
but, in general things work well, either without or after the
administration of some education (see RFC 4052 and 4053).
 
> We still have liaison activities happening today. For example,
> at the NSIS WG meeting in Montreal, individuals mentioned the
> actions they were personally taking to keep NSIS in synch with
> specific 3GPP activities. My point being that just because we
> don't formally recognize liaisons doesn't mean that
> individuals do not perform informal liaison services on their
> own volition.

Of course, see (2) above.  But the question was about a formal
agreement with ISO, and I am reasonably certain that no such
agreement exists.  Certainly it did not exist in the mid-, or
even late-, 90s.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:25:17 +0200

> agreement exists.  Certainly it did not exist in the mid-, or

It never existed. Liaison letters with a few JTC1 SCs were
signed around 1992.

     Brian