Hard-won compromise, I would guess. We have a recurrent problem
in persuading other organizations that we *really* mean it when
we say that participation is individual. Similar issues arose
in draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change, which was finally approved
yesterday.
Brian
On 2007-03-19 02:59, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: CableLabs - IETF Standardization Collaboration
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: March 18, 2007
IETF LC End Date: March 15, 2007?
IESG Telechat date: (2007-04-05
Summary: This document seems nearly ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.
Comments:
Section 4 on participation in the IETF Process seems to be
worded in a way that suggests that "individuals who also represent ...
CableLabs" will be participating in IETF meetings in part "in order to
assist the IETF in refining its understanding of Cablelabs
requirements." This seems to take us down the path of explicit
representatives who can not change their position as individuals. I
don't think that is the intent, but it probably should be clarified.
Section 5 also raises teh vision of "CableLabs activities within
the IETF." Again, only individuals can participate. The Liaison
statements are fine. It is the implication of another level of
interaction that raises question.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
