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(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)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(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
>
>
------------------------
Amardeo Sarma
NEC Network Laboratories
sarma(_at_)ccrle(_dot_)nec(_dot_)de
------------------------