Document: draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt
Review: Scott W Brim 
Date: 29 november 2004 

First, I want to be sure this is the one I'm supposed to review -- I
don't see anything newer but it came out on July 1st.  Assuming there
is nothing newer (likely):

Since it's not a specification it's acceptable as it is, but I suggest
a few enhancements:

- 1.0: "Individual members of the IETF are appointed as liaison
  managers
   or representatives to other organizations by the IAB or IESG as
   appropriate."

   s/members/participants/.  The concept of IETF "membership" is risky
   to bring up.  Use "participant" instead.  In text below,
   "participant" is used (correctly).

- 1.0: "o provide authenticated information of one organization's
   dependencies on the other's work."

   I think "authoritative" is what you're after, rather than
   "authenticated".

- 2.2 and 2.3: a sentence about interaction between IETF liaison
   managers (and maybe between representatives to different SDOs)
   would be good.  Times and responsibilities change, and what were
   once clean relationships overlap.  For example, both MFA and ITU-T
   are concerned with MPLS signaling -- their liaison managers and
   representatives need to coordinate.

   I suggest for 2.2 (managers):

     "IETF liaison managers should communicate and coordinate with
     other liaison managers where concerned technical activities
     overlap."

   and for 2.3 (representatives), something similar:

     "IETF liaison representatives should communicate and coordinate
     with liaison managers and other representatives where concerned
     technical activities overlap."

   and finally in 3 (summary of responsibilities):

     "o communicate and coordinate with other IETF liaison managers
     and
        representatives."

- 2.4: Back in July we had this exchange:

     From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Subject: Re: I-D
     ACTION:draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt Cc: iab@iab.org

     At 11:45 PM 16/07/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
> Hi Leslie.  I've been spending a lot of time in ITU-land recently
> and I have a suggestion for a change.  You say:
>
>  2.4 Liaison Communications
>
>     Communications between organizations use a variety of formal and
>     informal channels.  The stated preference of the IETF, which is
>     largely an informal organization, is to use informal channels,
>     as these have historically worked well to expedite matters.  In
>     some cases, however, more formal communications are appropriate.
>     In such cases, the established procedures of many organizations
>     use a form known as a "liaison statement".  Procedures for
>     sending, managing, and responding to liaison statements are
>     discussed in [6].
>
>
> In my experience, where liaison statements are used you inevitably
> have informal communication as well, sometimes lots of it.  For
> clarity, I suggest adding a sentence, before the last (just after
> "liaison statement."): "Communication through informal channels may
> also take place."

     I appreciate your point.  Wouldn't it make more sense to say:...

     "In some cases, however, a more formal communication is
     appropriate, either as an adjunct to the informal channel, or in
     its place. In the case of formal communications, established
     procedures of many organizations ..."


      Geoff

   Geoff's proposal is okay with me.

- Finally, idnits suggests it should have an IANA Considerations
   section. :-p


further notes from Avri Doria

I have just read this one and have an additional concern:

In 4 on Approval:

   For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF Area, the
   Area Director(s) must have generated or must agree with the sending
   of the liaison statement.  If the liaison statement is not sent by
   the Area Directors then their agreement is indicated by copying the
   Area Directors on the message.


   For a liaison statement generated on behalf of the IETF as a whole,
   the IETF Chair must have generated or must agree with the sending
   of the liaison statement.  If the liaison statement is not sent by
   the IETF Chair then his or her agreement is indicated by copying
   the IETF Chair on the message.

 For a liaison statement generated by the IAB, the IAB Chair must have
   generated or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement.
   If the liaison statement is not sent by the IAB Chair, then his or
   her agreement is indicated by copying the IAB Chair on the message.


In these cases, while there is an assumption of prior approval, it is
not explicitly required.

In all 3 case I would recommend changes like the following:

...or must agree with the sending of ...  to ... or must agree prior
to sending ..

and then change the

... his or her agreement is indicated ...  to ... his or her agreement
is confirmed ...