James, If you want some contributor or external body to explain anything, but you don't want that explaination to be made to, or benefit, this WG, then you are wasting everyone's time in this WG suggesting someone explain something to some outside of this WG. If that is what you want, than having such an explination put into a draft that is subject to the change control of this WG, or submitted to the IETF's I-D administrator for that purpose, is also wasting everyone's time in this WG.
Please figure out what it is you want, either in your capacity as co-chair, or in your capacity as contributor, and say it. At the moment, I'm concerned enough about what was written in <010801c16fbf$e55fc4e0$2c8498d3@jamessonyvaio> to have sent a note to the Chair of the IAB on the subject of External Liaisons, the subject of section 2.5 (f), of rfc2850. The "policy and stability considerations" of anything, work product from the UTC (the subject of Patrick's note), or from the JET (the subject of your note) are not technical. Their work product, in so far as it is of any interest to anyone working on independent interoperable implementations of anything, is. The tables are in-scope, who made them and why isn't, for this WG. Incidently, the issue isn't your personality, it is the role of transient WGs and institutional relationships. I appreciate that the first issue is something rather higher on your agenda than on mine. It might benefit you to read the related exchanges between people other than yourself to get a better idea of the Working Group issue(s), for instance between Patrick and I, on the same subject. Eric
