RE: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

"Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFDB21F99DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsIk+snYndQr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E17E11E81AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.38]) by mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id r9OHs37l013451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:54:03 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com r9OHs37l013451
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1382637244; bh=FcT9BoyxHw9m0L0sWDG/K2jeG+c=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=HLFlBUMLit+MDyaiSx1wXIpk25BKEfCHwg7+rKSTYRbw5p0fGy6t2wJsp1ZKtIFqD ruUwqm5jdbMPTOrrADLjzBf9UUkwhYT8tlsdrjjKpr6mOd7twIpVag0yQAaHEAE3Fa aiz32cB00o7QpXGrL5czSxE74a8V+rkReT+BkmDE=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com r9OHs37l013451
Received: from mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.22]) by maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:53:53 -0700
Received: from mxhub12.corp.emc.com (mxhub12.corp.emc.com [10.254.92.107]) by mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id r9OHrrTh014586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:53:53 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.46]) by mxhub12.corp.emc.com ([10.254.92.107]) with mapi; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:53:36 -0400
From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:53:51 -0400
Subject: RE: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Topic: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Index: Ac7Q082zattccST5Sr6yKoGx0xIA9gADclFg
Message-ID: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24049EA32C49@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <CADnDZ882Rex1GOK6SiGVXrizjNusHtLSbcH4P5AqABb+Y2tXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ882Rex1GOK6SiGVXrizjNusHtLSbcH4P5AqABb+Y2tXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24049EA32C49MX15Acorpemcc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Cc: "draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:54:41 -0000

I don't see how that is possible.  Different SDOs have different focus areas with clear interdependencies between the work.  We don't need to try to replicate the work happening elsewhere, but rather should continue to play nice with other SDOs.  It would be really hard to get all of the various experts needed attend multiple forums because one SDO didn't want to reference the work they did in another SDO.

Regards,
Kathleen

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:04 PM
To: ietf
Cc: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

I don't agree with comparing our standards with other SDO standards within our work, or even making our work process depend on other SDO products. IETF RFC should try its best to have normative references that are RFCs not dependent/government oriented. We may end up with a new name for our IETF, as dependent IETF (DIETF).

AB