Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

Hello Cullen,

The actual encoding issue of the "string" arises only in the text 
version of the protocol :).

I think that when the original specification of packages was done people 
wanted to distinguish between packages that SDO groups produced and 
those that a single company produced. I guess a similar distinction 
between working group ietf drafts and individual submission drafts. It 
says something to people.

With regards to referencing an ITU list by the IETF I don't really 
consider this a political issue. I've quite happily added references to 
IETF documents and IANA lists. If someone has compiled a useful list 
that can be referenced without me having to re-invent the wheel then I'm 
happy do this.

However in conclusion I'm more than happy to leave "Recognised SDO" 
vague as this is what has been specified for the last 8 years and this 
aspect hasn't caused any problems to date.

Regards, Christian

Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
>>>> "recognized standards bodies."  How does a standards body become
>>>> "recognized" by the IETF?  Should we specify that a liaison 
>>>> relationship
>>>> must be in place?
>> [CNG] Yes it may be good to add which bodies are recognized. Given 
>> that H.248/Megaco was developed jointly the people who came mainly 
>> from IETF thought "IETF Liaison relationship" and those from the ITU 
>> probably thought "Recognised Standards Development Organisation". I 
>> had a quick look at the IETF website and 
>> found:http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html is this the list of 
>> bodies who the IETF has a liaison relationship with?
>
> "Recognized SDO" is a somewhat vague term at IETF - basically the IAB 
> can determine who is or is not one but there is no question that 
> someone groups like ITU-T, ATIS, ETSI, 3GPP, W3C,  etc are recognized 
> SDOs - it gets more dice when you move to something XSF. I'm fine with 
> this level of vagueness as it leaves things flexible. Keep in mind we 
> are discussing the length of a small string that occurs in a binary 
> protocol over the wire - I have a hard time getting worked up my the 
> total impact of this one way or the other.
>
>>
>>
>> The ITU-T also maintains a list of qualified Forums/Consortiums 
>> (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx#forums). This seems to 
>> be a more comprehensive list of organisations (i.e. it includes 
>> national bodies). Could I had a pointer to this list in the draft?
>>
>
>
> Uh, the ITU list is pretty irrelevant for this IETF doc. I will note 
> that as far as I understand ITU does *not* recognize the IETF as a SDO 
> but talks to ISOC (which is more definitely not the IETF these days) 
> as a sector member.
>
>
>