Re: [Gen-art] LC review: draft-mule-ietf-cablelabs-collaboration-03.txt

Hard-won compromise, I would guess. We have a recurrent problem
in persuading other organizations that we *really* mean it when
we say that participation is individual. Similar issues arose
in draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change, which was finally approved
yesterday.

      Brian

On 2007-03-19 02:59, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> 
> Document: CableLabs - IETF Standardization Collaboration
> Reviewer:  Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date:  March 18, 2007
> IETF LC End Date: March 15, 2007?
> IESG Telechat date: (2007-04-05
> 
> Summary: This document seems nearly ready for publication as an 
> Informational RFC.
> 
> Comments:
>         Section 4 on participation in the IETF Process seems to be 
> worded in a way that suggests that "individuals who also represent ... 
> CableLabs" will be participating in IETF meetings in part "in order to 
> assist the IETF in refining its understanding of Cablelabs 
> requirements."  This seems to take us down the path of explicit 
> representatives who can not change their position as individuals.  I 
> don't think that is the intent, but it probably should be clarified.
>         Section 5 also raises teh vision of "CableLabs activities within 
> the IETF."  Again, only individuals can participate.  The Liaison 
> statements are fine.  It is the implication of another level of 
> interaction that raises question.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art