Liaison with other SDOs
Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com
Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com
Fri Jul 18 16:49:31 CEST 2003
As mentioned during the session on Tuesday I think we need a new issue
about how IETF deals with its "SDO customers". This should cover
communication issues (need to talk and listen to customers) but also time
schedules and committments (need to make and keep promises with customers),
understanding why an SDO thinks it needs a particular protocol extension
(need to sometimes say "NO" to a potential customer) and finally
understanding risks of customers going "elsewhere" (or "home brewing)
protocol extensions.
Might try to put some formal text together next week
- Alistair URIE
"Adrian Farrel"
<adrian at olddog.co.uk> To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent by: cc:
problem-statement-bounces at al Subject: Liaison with other SDOs
vestrand.no
17/07/2003 21:47
Please respond to Adrian
Farrel
Hi,
Thank you for the drafts to date.
I have been unable to follow the list consistently, so apologies if this
has been covered.
Section 2.1 of draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-02.txt alludes to
problems communicating with other SDOs.
"This can lead to the IETF being
misunderstood by other SDOs which can make communications between
SDOs less effective, harming the IETF's ability to achieve its
mission."
There is, however, no coverage of the explicit issue of communications with
other SDOs. You will be aware of the considerable friction between the
ccamp WG and the ITU-T. These frictions are not conducive to the
development of standards in a timely manner. The issue in ccamp has been
recognized and the co-chairs are striving to resolve the issues, but there
is a long way to go.
It seems that 'the process' for working with other SDOs is not perfect.
Thanks,
Adrian
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list