SC29 liaison

Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr> Wed, 10 May 1995 15:32 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05377; 10 May 95 11:32 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05373; 10 May 95 11:32 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09180; 10 May 95 11:32 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05362; 10 May 95 11:31 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05356; 10 May 95 11:31 EDT
Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09165; 10 May 95 11:31 EDT
Received: by mitsou.inria.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01482; Wed, 10 May 1995 17:32:31 +0200
Message-Id: <199505101532.RAA01482@mitsou.inria.fr>
To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
cc: iab@isi.edu
Subject: SC29 liaison
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 17:32:30 +0200
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>

The IAB considered the issue of liaison with SC29, and more generally the
general problem of liaison craze and the risk of death by multiple liaisons.
We suggest the following:

1) the agreement with SC6, which merely ask each party to consider each other
work and avoid to unnecessary duplicate it is fine.

2) instead of nominating a hundred liaison-persons, there should be a simple
rule - either the relevant AD or the IESG secretariat.

3) most of the liaison's burden is to send and receive documents every 3 or 6
months. We should reduce the work-load by insisting on electronic
distribution. The prototype agreement should be amended to request that each
party provides the mail address where documents will be sent.

Would this make the handling of liaisons acceptable by the IESG?

Christian Huitema