Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF
draft-baker-liaison-statements-04

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

  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/

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.