Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Allison Mankin
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2005-06-06
04 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-iab-liaison-mgt
2005-01-25
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-01-21
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-01-21
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-01-21
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-01-20
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Harald Alvestrand
2005-01-18
04 (System) New version available: draft-baker-liaison-statements-04.txt
2005-01-18
04 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten
2004-12-13
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2004-12-10
04 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Allison Mankin
2004-12-09
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-12-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-baker-liaison-statements-03.txt
2004-12-06
04 Thomas Narten
[Ballot discuss]
>    Liaison Statements are only exchanged within the context of
>    established liaison relationships, which are managed by the IAB.

So, …
[Ballot discuss]
>    Liaison Statements are only exchanged within the context of
>    established liaison relationships, which are managed by the IAB.

So, does this mean we don't accept liaion statements nor send them to
organization with which we have no formal liaison agreement? I hope
this isn't true. It would be fine for this document to just cover
liaison processes for which  we've set up formal liaisons, leaving the
others out-of-scope. But this document shouldn't preclude us from
doing things on the other cases as appropriate

This document has quite a lot of tool-specific detail that I don't
think should be normative in a "BCP" sense. A BCP should reflect what
the process should be (at an appropriately high-level), with the
implementation details subject to evolvement/implementation without
having to go to a BCP (or change it to make an obvious feature change).

For example:

>    The status/management mechanism contains a simple frame, showing the
>    title of the liaison statement, the URL for its mechanism, and the
>    organizations it is from and to.

And this really goes to far:

>    As a convenience, the liaison statement page described in Section 4.2
>    may be used to generate a reply.  If an authenticated person (usually
>    a working group char or AD) selects "reply", a new liaison statement
>    page is generated from the existing one, reversing the addressing
>    information.  IETF documents should be referenced by URL, such as
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>file< or
>    ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>file<.

To summarize, the implementation specifics (e.g., web-based stuff)
should not be considered part of the formal BCP.

>    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].

This seems at odds with the discussion throughout this document as to
how to respond to liaison statements. Or is this sentence just
focusing on the narrow question of the mechanics of sending a
completed statement? Also, this is a bit confusing given the
"authenticated" discussion in 5.2.4, which seems to imply that the
official response is what gets posted on the web page.

>    processes.  Historically, the IETF has not handled liaison statements

s/has not/has not always/

>    This is the reason that the submission process is automated, and
>    restricted to authenticated submitters.  While the IETF cannot
>    rate-limit the submitters it authenticates, it can control who it
>    authenticates, and it can manage its internal pipelines.

this text again seems to make it clear that the automated tools are a
big part of this document.
2004-12-06
04 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Thomas Narten
2004-12-02
04 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-12-16 by Amy Vezza
2004-12-02
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-12-02
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza
2004-12-02
04 Alex Zinin State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Alex Zinin
2004-12-02
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-12-02
04 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-12-02
04 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-11-30
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-11-29
04 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-11-29
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-11-28
04 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2004-11-28
04 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Harald Alvestrand
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-12-02 by Harald Alvestrand
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup by Harald Alvestrand
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand Ballot has been issued by Harald Alvestrand
2004-11-25
04 Harald Alvestrand Created "Approve" ballot
2004-10-26
04 Michelle Cotton IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2004-10-25
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-10-11
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-10-11
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-10-09
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand
2004-10-09
04 Harald Alvestrand Last Call was requested by Harald Alvestrand
2004-10-09
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-10-09
04 (System) Last call text was added
2004-10-09
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-10-09
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested by Harald Alvestrand
2004-10-07
04 Harald Alvestrand
AD Review comments:

- Title: "Procedure for Handling Liaison Statements Between Standards Bodies" seems a bit grandiose (3GPP to ITU?). "Procedures for handling liaison statements …
AD Review comments:

- Title: "Procedure for Handling Liaison Statements Between Standards Bodies" seems a bit grandiose (3GPP to ITU?). "Procedures for handling liaison statements to and from the IETF" might be better.

- Abstract: Liaison Statements only within established liaison relationships - this increases the pressure to establish such relationships. Clarify later?

- Section 2: "generally the purpose is to solicit information, comment, or action". Unclear how the verb binds - do you intend "solicit information, solicit comment or solicit action", or do you intend "solicit information, make a comment or request an action"?
2.1.1.6 seems to indicate "give information, solicit comment or request action", which is not consistent with the sentence as written.

- 2.1.1: I don't understand "meta-statements regarding". What about "properties of"?

- Section 3: It is not clear to me when a response is a returning liaison statement and when it is not - in some cases, like a "thank you" note, it seems clearly informal.

- Section 4.2 mentions "recently closed" liaison statements. I think they should be permanently archived - but the very old archives don't need to be "in your face"....

- Section 5.2 regarding replies: the case of nobody bothering to comment within a reasonable period may warrant mention. In that case, the chair should be able to say "no interest in WG on the isuse".

- I am somewhat worried about Appendix A and B being seen as "normative" when this goes forward as a BCP. I would like to either put in a note saying that these are "for information, may be modified later without notification", or a note saying that these are present to inform the debate at Last Call, and will be removed from the published RFC.

No showstoppers for a Last Call that I can see.
2004-10-07
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand
2004-09-17
04 Harald Alvestrand Merged with draft-iab-liaison-mgt by Harald Alvestrand
2004-09-16
04 Harald Alvestrand State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Harald Alvestrand
2004-09-16
04 Harald Alvestrand Draft Added by Harald Alvestrand in state Publication Requested
2004-09-16
04 Harald Alvestrand [Note]: 'See also draft-iab-liaison-mgt' added by Harald Alvestrand
2004-09-15
02 (System) New version available: draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt
2004-07-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-baker-liaison-statements-01.txt
2004-02-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-baker-liaison-statements-00.txt