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. At 12:29 AM 3/6/2002, Amardeo Sarma wrote: >.. 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 > >Quoting Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>: > > > On 3/5/02 at 1:22 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > > > > >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. > > > > 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:presnick@qualcomm.com> > > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > > > > > > >------------------------ >Amardeo Sarma >NEC Network Laboratories >sarma@ccrle.nec.de >------------------------