IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships
RFC 4052

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Yes

Comment (2004-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

His review of draft-iab-liaison-mgt:

Since it's not a specification it's acceptable as it is, but I suggest a
few enhancements:

- 1.0: "Individual members of the IETF are appointed as liaison managers
  or representatives to other organizations by the IAB or IESG as
  appropriate."

  s/members/participants/.  The concept of IETF "membership" is risky to
  bring up.  Use "participant" instead.  In text below, "participant" is
  used (correctly).

- 1.0: "o  provide authenticated information of one organization's
  dependencies on the other's work."

  I think "authoritative" is what you're after, rather than
  "authenticated".

- 2.2 and 2.3: a sentence about interaction between IETF liaison
  managers (and maybe between representatives to different SDOs) would
  be good.  Times and responsibilities change, and what were once clean
  relationships overlap.  For example, both MFA and ITU-T are concerned
  with MPLS signaling -- their liaison managers and representatives need
  to coordinate.  

  I suggest for 2.2 (managers):

    "IETF liaison managers should communicate and coordinate with other
    liaison managers where concerned technical activities overlap."
  
  and for 2.3 (representatives), something similar:

    "IETF liaison representatives should communicate and coordinate with
    liaison managers and other representatives where concerned technical
    activities overlap."
  
  and finally in 3 (summary of responsibilities):

    "o communicate and coordinate with other IETF liaison managers and
       representatives."

- 2.4: Back in July we had this exchange:

    From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
    Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt
    Cc: iab@iab.org
  
    At 11:45 PM 16/07/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
    >Hi Leslie.  I've been spending a lot of time in ITU-land recently
    >and I have a suggestion for a change.  You say:
    >
    >  2.4  Liaison Communications
    >
    >     Communications between organizations use a variety of formal
    >     and informal channels.  The stated preference of the IETF,
    >     which is largely an informal organization, is to use informal
    >     channels, as these have historically worked well to expedite
    >     matters.  In some cases, however, more formal communications
    >     are appropriate.  In such cases, the established procedures of
    >     many organizations use a form known as a "liaison statement".
    >     Procedures for sending, managing, and responding to liaison
    >     statements are discussed in [6].
    >
    >
    >In my experience, where liaison statements are used you inevitably
    >have informal communication as well, sometimes lots of it.  For
    >clarity, I suggest adding a sentence, before the last (just after
    >"liaison statement."): "Communication through informal channels may
    >also take place."
    
    I appreciate your point.  Wouldn't it  make more sense to say:...
    
    "In some cases, however, a more formal communication is appropriate,
    either as an adjunct to the informal channel, or in its place. In
    the case of formal communications, established procedures of many
    organizations ..."
    
    
     Geoff

  Geoff's proposal is okay with me.

- Finally, idnits suggests it should have an IANA Considerations
  section. :-p

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2004-12-02)
No email
send info
About draft-baker-liaison-statements:

Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 
1 through 4, and the title (singular) "Procedure", make it hard for a working group or AD to realize 
that the useful advice is hidden in there.  I wonder if it might be possible for the title or
abstract to include more of hint hint that this document also gives guidelines about the useful
information flows in liaison relationships.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-30)
No email
send info
  I propose an alternative abstract for draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.
  This may be expanded if the scope for the two document is supposed
  to address liaison relationships with other SDOs, consortia and
  industry fora.
  
    This document discusses the procedures used by the IAB to establish
    and maintain liaison relationships with other Standards Development
    Organizations (SDOs) as well as the appointment and responsibilities
    of IETF liaison managers and representatives.  This document further
    discusses the expectations of the IAB for organizations with whom
    liaison relationships are established.

  In section 3 of draft-baker-liaison-statements-02:
    s/temporary document/business document/

  In section 4 of draft-baker-liaison-statements-02:
    s/it is good if this could be automated/automation is desirable/

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-02)
No email
send info
For draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt: 

>    In general, a liaison relationship is most valuable when there are
>    areas of technical development of mutual interest.  For the most
>    part, SDO's would rather leverage existing work done by other
>    organizations than recreate it themselves (and they would like their
>    own standards work used rather than abused/recreated!).  Establishing
>    a liaison relationship can provide the framework for ongoing
>    communications to

s/abused/something else? I would expect others outside the IETF to
read this, and this term is not so good for them.


>    communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely.  He or she
>    may use any businesslike approach to that necessary, from private
>    communications to public communications, and bringing in other
>    parties as needed.  If a communication from a peer organization is

senetence doesn't parse.

>    All outgoing liaison statements will be copied to IETF Secretariat by
>    the liaison statement page.

Not sure what this means exactly. Is this specifying a fixed
procedure? For most readers, they won't understand what this procedure
is supposed to be.

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Comments based on review by (MIB Doctor) Dan Romascanu.
He found some inconsistencies between the two documents that we
may want to clean up and/or clarify.

Below are his findinsg with even suggested text for fixing.

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt

1. In section 1.1 the definition of the 'liaison manager' seems un-appropriate and not consistent with http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt. Being a 'liaison manager' is certainly not only about agreeing to be one.

OLD:

  Liaison manager: As defined by [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt], an IETF person
      who agrees to manage a liaison relationship for the IETF.

NEW: 

Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure that
   communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as defined by sections 2.2 and 3 in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt].

2. section 2.1.1.6 - There is one more category of liaison purpose that is worth mentioning in my opinion. This is the case when a response is being sent to another SDO as result of a request for comments on one or more documents that belong to the peer organization. 

Suggested bullet to add:

NEW: In Response to a Request for Comments: The liaison statement includes a response to a request for comment from the peer organization on one or more of its documents, and it expects no further response.

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt

1. The Abstract and Title of this document seem to indicate that this document refers only to IAB liaisons. However section 5.2.4 in http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt indicates that this document specifies the process for generating and approving IETF liaisons:

  The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison
   statements is a matter of IETF process, and is specified in
   [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt].


 I would suggest a change in the Abstract, and maybe also the title to clarify this. 
 
For example the title could be changed as follows:

OLD: 

IAB Processes for management of liaison relationships

NEW:

IAB Processes for management of IETF and IAB liaison relationships

While the Abstract could be changes as follows:

OLD:

This document discusses the procedures the IAB uses to select
   organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with.  It
   further discusses the expectations that the IAB has of such
   organizations and of the people assigned to manage those
   relationships.

NEW: 

The IAB plays an important role in the process of maintaining IETF 
liaisons with other organizations, as well as manages liaisons of 
itself. This document discusses the procedures the IAB and IETF uses to select
   organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with.  It
   further discusses the expectations that the IAB and IETF have of such
   organizations and of the people assigned to manage those
   relationships.


*** matchref -- match citations and references.
    Input file: draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt


!! Duplicate reference:
  P016 L027:    [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]
  P019 L010:       [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]).

!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P016 L032:    [ITU.ietf.guidelines]

!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P016 L041:    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P016 L044:    [RFC3356]  Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task