RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

Okay, just so you know what you are asking for.

For my group to send an email to the ecrit or geopriv list, we discuss it in
a conference call, we MAY (but often don't) pass around a draft, and we
designate some one to send it.

To get a liaison out, we fill out a form, hold a semi-official vote, send it
to the "tech lead team", which includes Roger. They approve it, and then
Roger sends it. So far, the average time to get through that process is
between one and three months, although everyone agrees that is ridiculous,
and we should be able to get it down to a couple of weeks.

So sure, we can have a formal liaison if you want one.

Brian

  _____

From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'GEOPRIV'; 'ECRIT'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

On Mar 15, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

While a formal liaison relationship with NENA is possible, I don't feel we

need one. NENA, like IETF, can do formal liaisons, but the organization is

not an SDO, and doesn't really have a great process for liaisons. It would

be nice to have a better way to get document drafts to IETF folks.

Brian,

The IETF has liaison relationships with organizations that are not typically
classified as SDOs. ICANN is a big example. I would also disagree about NENA
not being an SDO, as they appear to be publishing standards in the context
of these conversations. The standards may not be typical technical wire
protocol specifications, but requirements can also be standards. I just had
a conversation with Roger Hixson about the possibility of a formal liaison,
and he believes it to be appropriate.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:41:47 -0400