Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

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.

AB

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:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
> Of *Abdussalam Baryun
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:04 PM
> *To:* ietf
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *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****
>