At 8:53 AM -0500 3/9/02, John Stracke wrote: > >However, what's the point of tying someone to the >>rails after the train wreck? > >As a deterrent, I think. "Don't misrepresent the ITU position, because >they know whom they sent, and you'll blow your credibility in the ITU." The trouble here is the damage has already been done. Perhaps this person would not cause further problems, but the idea of the Guidelines draft is to prevent the problem in the first place. Because we want to find a way to collaborate, the draft should make some additional accommodations for differences between the ITU-T and the IETF. It must be made clear in section 3.2.2 someone may put on an ITU "hat" for the purpose of reporting on status of some ITU Working Party's work as it relates to the work of the IETF working group. However, the ITU hat confers no additional value to comments made by that person outside the purpose on reporting the ITU Working Party's status. This is much the same as when a WG chair puts on his WG hat to clarify a point of procedure, but must remove it in order to comment on the work under discussion. Section 3.2.1 is problematic, because it assumes that someone participating in an IETF Working Group and also participating in an ITU-T Working Party is capable of representing the IETF's point of view. Rough consensus implies there is no single IETF point of view on an issue. What is available is what the IETF has published as RFCs. Those are the authoritative statements of the IETF, and represent the IETF's rough consensus. I realize there is a need for collaboration before a document is published as an RFC. However, it is a disservice to both the ITU-T and to the IETF to say that an individual can represent the IETF's view before an RFC is published. 3.2.2 should make clear that even if someone participating in an IETF working group has been designated as a delegate to an ITU-T meeting, that individual represents the point of view of the IETF only insofar as he is consistent with what is published in RFCs. I-Ds may contain interesting information, but they aren't authoritative. 3.3.1 deals with I-Ds, but doesn't discuss I-Ds which aren't under the aegis of a IETF working group. The IETF does not now restrict access to I-Ds (or any other document). The ITU should not need permission to consider them. best, -- john noerenberg jwn2@qualcomm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- While the belief we have found the Answer can separate us and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues to bring us together, the makes and keeps us human. -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------