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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

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.