Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Abdussalam Baryun <> Thu, 31 October 2013 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E11F11E81D1 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.512
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YNKWUXgw+g1d for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7772E11E8285 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id kq14so1728915pab.7 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PhKssxcvVfExFsBmdUZoozMDaCqkDY1LcC5IIPEsKEI=; b=zfWn168XAKEed3of0ot0/YYr1ODDSo4kRVo9Mf33Ucxr7xslJENjrqk3o+LEDJ6RLw gGK8wOQD/rbQVkOZVhdm+f8dYv/n7xSdCd3Fbi+pD6bM4qxkya34C0+5I8ic3/gSLHAr xUITybrnfsEsTKvXE21FiNs/RyIx34xyU+Zmx2LWMrWcF4mWlr3pQ6LsEmznwXoSE6/Q 7ECa/jsdQLy52FQsfN+H1Gm3Pq1gLHp0MmT+HHW2gs/W9ZLPGuotgrxsnmGVN8iA/i7v Zd54VcWzim3rb8xZDloervodDoktAEMnuAQ9HmhSWbSHWw1U3D4U7QLluxI+5dXZjRWs 4whQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id bs3mr1243243pad.46.1383180566772; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:49:26 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b15afd357c37204e9fed284"
Cc: "" <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:49:31 -0000

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.


On Thursday, October 24, 2013, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:

> I don’t see how that is possible.  Different SDOs have different focus
> areas with clear interdependencies between the work.
> I suggest
Interoperable but not interdependent

> We don’t need to try to replicate the work happening elsewhere, but rather
> should continue to play nice with other SDOs.
> We can do better work than others so why replicate, but it is ok to build
on others sub-work.

> 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.  ****
> Referencing is always good but following without progress is not good .

> ** **
> Regards,****
> Kathleen****
> ** **
> *From:* [] *On Behalf
> Of *Abdussalam Baryun
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:04 PM
> *To:* ietf
> *Cc:*
> *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****