Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new subject)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:00 PM, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <
> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So I guess that IETF has therefore abandoned RFC 5727.
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how "abandoning 5727" follows from "no liaison
> manager for OMA". I'm not getting it; can you elaborate?
> >
> >>
> >> OMA last asked for 6 header fields to be registered. As far as I
> understand they were told they needed a standards track RFC to do this.
> Identifying no need for cooperation tells me that IETF is quite happy they
> have their own version of the SIP specification.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think choosing not to assign a liaison manager implies we expect
> no cooperation. You don't need an IETF assigned liaison manager to someone
> bring a draft to the IETF, do you?
>
> Okay, that was a cut-paste disaster. s/ "to someone bring" / "for someone
> to bring"
>
[MB] Correct, you do not need an IETF appointed liaison manager in order to
work with another SDO/forum. There is an email address for any liaison
statements to be sent and those are generally distributed to the
appropriate parties.  The drafts run the normal course through the process.
 Note, that IETF only recently decided they did not need a liaison manager
for OMA as the individual that was in that role was no longer able to do
it.  But, the assessment at that time was that one was not needed. The onus
is not on IETF to drive the contributions from another SDO.  The onus is on
the individuals that are driving the work.  [/MB]

>
> >
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net]
> >>> Sent: 01 November 2012 20:09
> >>> To: Ben Campbell
> >>> Cc: Olle E. Johansson; Bernard Aboba; DRAGE, Keith (Keith);
> >>> simple@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new
> subject)
> >>>
> >>> Murray was the liaison person to the OMA from the IETF side. Murray
> >>> recently discontinued his participation in the OMA (due to a job
> change).
> >>> We discussed the need to appoint a new liaison person in the IAB and
> came
> >>> to the conclusion that no new appointment is necessary; the required
> need
> >>> to interact with the OMA had decreased over time.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone on this list believe that there is a need for cooperation
> with
> >>> the OMA?
> >>>
> >>> Ciao
> >>> Hannes
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my ASUS Pad
> >>>
> >>> Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:20 PM, "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What is the current relationship betwen OMA and the IETF? ANy
> >>> cooperation, like between 3Gpp and the IETF?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a liaison, but I don't think it's been very active for a
> while
> >>> now.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Simple mailing list
> >>>> Simple@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>