Hello Cullen,
The actual encoding issue of the "string" arises only in the text
version of the protocol :).
I think that when the original specification of packages was done people
wanted to distinguish between packages that SDO groups produced and
those that a single company produced. I guess a similar distinction
between working group ietf drafts and individual submission drafts. It
says something to people.
With regards to referencing an ITU list by the IETF I don't really
consider this a political issue. I've quite happily added references to
IETF documents and IANA lists. If someone has compiled a useful list
that can be referenced without me having to re-invent the wheel then I'm
happy do this.
However in conclusion I'm more than happy to leave "Recognised SDO"
vague as this is what has been specified for the last 8 years and this
aspect hasn't caused any problems to date.
Regards, Christian
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
"recognized standards bodies." How does a standards body become
"recognized" by the IETF? Should we specify that a liaison
relationship
must be in place?
[CNG] Yes it may be good to add which bodies are recognized. Given
that H.248/Megaco was developed jointly the people who came mainly
from IETF thought "IETF Liaison relationship" and those from the ITU
probably thought "Recognised Standards Development Organisation". I
had a quick look at the IETF website and
found:http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html is this the list of
bodies who the IETF has a liaison relationship with?
"Recognized SDO" is a somewhat vague term at IETF - basically the IAB
can determine who is or is not one but there is no question that
someone groups like ITU-T, ATIS, ETSI, 3GPP, W3C, etc are recognized
SDOs - it gets more dice when you move to something XSF. I'm fine with
this level of vagueness as it leaves things flexible. Keep in mind we
are discussing the length of a small string that occurs in a binary
protocol over the wire - I have a hard time getting worked up my the
total impact of this one way or the other.
The ITU-T also maintains a list of qualified Forums/Consortiums
(http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx#forums). This seems to
be a more comprehensive list of organisations (i.e. it includes
national bodies). Could I had a pointer to this list in the draft?
Uh, the ITU list is pretty irrelevant for this IETF doc. I will note
that as far as I understand ITU does *not* recognize the IETF as a SDO
but talks to ISOC (which is more definitely not the IETF these days)
as a sector member.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
