Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 31 October 2013 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 CD9C011E80F1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XRGdyG7wp8jH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3F021E80CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:9d6e:cb9e:fc6:d8c4] ([IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:9d6e:cb9e:fc6:d8c4]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9V8issc082432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:44:56 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl r9V8issc082432
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1383209098; bh=RtLWwTU8dBT8EWgyNYUreUeh00JF/gHEratg36Vxhm0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=N4KUf4FI5Nq2U5+unT61JksViGKtVsZW6fLwlxi8a3/OAwMzi43/5G6Ra6ZjNNFU9 Lnx6QQ0+qFVY/1UIVpRER/xZL+IaqP5fG0DwASlBLquxb9Pf9JsIwQB0qcGSnPKm44 oWnpDSg8Ljo8L3xAtApRpebbxuXAM/Q7xQ764bY0=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B793330-3601-4B24-A55D-55097690299D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-KtfLSfPupzY2rDCbFpAdQ6es-birt2z3gtdoHG+iRCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:44:53 +0100
Message-Id: <5D09DCB7-3359-4F5D-909F-8486844EAFE6@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <CADnDZ882Rex1GOK6SiGVXrizjNusHtLSbcH4P5AqABb+Y2tXWQ@mail.gmail.com> <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24049EA32C49@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <52696048.1050701@dcrocker.net> <CADnDZ8-KtfLSfPupzY2rDCbFpAdQ6es-birt2z3gtdoHG+iRCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:44:58 +0100 (CET)
Cc: "draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@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, 31 Oct 2013 08:45:16 -0000

On 31 okt. 2013, at 01:49, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Kathleen
> 
> As my understanding, this procedure update document under review allows comparing SDO work within our IETF work, so as IETF is already open to allow all participation of businesses and SDOs into IETF, this issue of comparing discussions while our standards draft developing will create longer discussions and even disagreements between businesses/companies. 
> 
> Any cross-organisation standard work issues with external bodies we need an agreement policy like our one with ITU. I don't think it is good to discuss comparisons in IETF because the IETF is open (other May not be), and we should focus on the development of our standards following IETF aim. The document does not mention any agreement requirement between IETF and other SDOs, if we want to allow such process.
> 
> IMO the IETF has special aim and different standard vision than other SDOs , so IETF standards need to be interoperable, competitive, and not dependant. I suggest to add a requirement of existing agreement policy when doing work that involve other SDO.
> 

Dear Abdussalam,

Just to clarify what the draft is about: It is about documenting our processes and giving a characterization of Proposed Standards that match what amount of review we have performed and what the resulting quality is. 

There has been quite some pushback on the language that compares the quality of our output with the quality of other SDOs output. A version 05 will shortly be available (and I will post a message to the IETF list when it is) that is far more neutral (less condescending) than the previous versions of the document.

Cooperation with other SDOs, in the form of e.g. liaison relations, is not the subject of this document. The document also doesn’t talk about various types of normative relations that IETF standards may have with other documents.  I think that this document will not cause ‘longer discussions’ by itself.

I hope this clarifies, if not feel free to contact me off-list.

Thanks for engaging and kind regards,

—Olaf