Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> >In doing that, yes, I think I'm representing the IETF.  It's never in
> >the sense that "I'm speaking for the IETF, and the IETF says..."  That
> >*would* be what formal liaison statements are for, and we have never
> >done a formal liaison statement to or from M3AAWG.
>
> If I understood the liaison programme correctly, there is some
> overhead on the IAB side as it has to assign one of its members to
> keep an eye on what is going on.  Is it useful to have a liaison
> relationship when there aren't any concerns or a need for formal
> representation?  That is the question which, in my opinion, is useful
> for the IAB to think about.

There's *some* overhead with pretty much anything that a committee has
to do, but the overhead of managing a liaison relationship that's
working well is quite low.  Yes, there's someone assigned to keep
track of me as M3AAWG liaison manager.  I hear from that IAB member
usually only when the assignee changes, because there isn't much more
to do: I try to send the IAB a routine report once a year, giving a
summary of what's been happening.  If something needs to be raised, I
send the IAB a report about that when it comes up, and I think that
happened once or twice -- not because of a liaison problem, but
because there was a topic that I thought they should be aware of.  And
a couple of times since 2009 the assignee has talked with me about
whether the liaison relationship is still useful, and we decided,
after a chat, that it was.

It's my goal as liaison manager to make sure that the overhead is as
low as I can make it, and that both organizations see some benefit
from the relationship.

> As an off-topic comment, I would say that part of being open is also
> about being open to objections.  When that does not work well, people
> take their work elsewhere.

Indeed, and I certainly agree with both of those statements.

Barry