Liaison statements [was: Re: [irsg] Re: request for topics for WG Chairs forum @ IETF 126]

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rohan,

I think the problems you describe below mainly apply to the ITU-T, so let’s not overly generalize this. We, for example, have very well working liaison relationships with 3GPP and IEEE where we usually don’t see these problems or can resolve them very quickly and productively. Instead for ITU-T, we receive a large amount of liaison statement, much larger than from all other orgs together, and, yes, we do sometimes see overlap with work in the IETF or even proposals that were rejected in the IETF. Especially, if we detect a conflict with work in the IETF, we should reply or send them (or any other SDO) a liaison statement proactively and we have done this a couple of times in the past – sometimes directly from leadership or sometimes from a specific working, in that case often as a reply to received statement.

In that sense it is it good if we get these liaison statements and the people, who work also actively in the ITU-T, try flag those overlaps and actively push for having them sent, at minimum as a reminder to the ITU-T that there are other relevant works  in other SDOs as well. However, we also get a lot of statements from them that are not really in scope for IETF, and that feels a bit like a DoS attack.

Generally, there two important points here: First, having these exchange with other SDO is a good, sometimes necessary thing and we can’t or shouldn’t really restrict other SDOs in what they want to sent us. I mean we have a MoU with the ITU-T which provides guidelines but in the end we cannot reject a liaison statement that is sent to us.

Second, we cannot really tell other SDOs what to do or not to do, similarly as we don’t want other SDOs to limit the IETF in their decisions. If there is a conflict in active work, we should raise this, in particular cases where e.g. the IETF is the clear maintainer of a protocol that should therefore only be modified or extended in the IETF. Usually in those cases, sooner or later the right thing happens. However, in other cases where we simply don’t agree with the work or where we see work that does not align with the principles on how we design Internet protocols, we can still raise our voice but that a much less strong position.

For chairs, this means that I think we generally should take all input we get serious and consider it. However, many of the ITU-T statement are sent for information only and therefore do not require a reply. Even the ones for action may not always be in scope and there is no real action to take; that’s okay. However, if you detect a case where there is a conflict, please raise this with the group, ADs, and also our ITU-T liaison manager Scott Mansfield (in cc now). We can send a reply if needed. Also, Scott is closely tracking all liaison statements and aims to flags those were a reply is useful. However, he cannot send the reply; that usually needs to come from a wg or leadership.

Not sure what else to say here. If people have concrete problems or questions, please reach out to Scott or generally the respective liaison manager for that SDO and the IAB. Talking to a liaison manager or IAB is usually always the right first step, as after all each case needs to be consider on its own.

If there are a lot of questions on this topic, I happy to come to the chairs forum, and/or we could reach out to the IAB liaison coordinator as well (which I am not anymore). But otherwise not sure what else you’d want me to present?

Mirja



From: Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 5. July 2026 at 08:32
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]>, Working Group Chairs <[e-mail]>, Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
Subject: [irsg] Re: request for topics for WG Chairs forum @ IETF 126

Hi Mirja,

In brief, I have two distinct problems in mind. One is dealing with forum shopping by participants (whether in good faith or bad faith).

The other is empire building in other SDOs, where the other SDO or their participants just want to get anything published to look like they are productive/doing something/"helping" the IETF, when they are just producing slop and maybe causing a DoS attack on the IETF.

thanks,
-rohan

On Fri, 3 Jul 2026, 13:33 Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF), <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Happy to talk about liaison statements any time but what kind of things are you explicitly looking for?

Mirja




On 3. Jul 2026, at 10:29, Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi,
Would anyone be willing to give a short presentation on some difficult liaisons with other SDOs and how that was handled?
Cheers,
-rohan


On Fri, 3 Jul 2026, 10:24 Tim Chown, <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

Shwetha and I are now using AI tools for int-dir review assignments and tracking.  We could explain that very briefly as perhaps a segue into a discussion about use of AI tools for working group management?

Can we improve WG management processes?
Can we get useful WG list summaries?
Can we get useful draft reviews?
Etc

Tim

On 24/06/2026, 04:50, "Karen ODonoghue" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hello working group co-chairs,

It’s that time again… please send any requests or offers for the working group chairs forum to Rich and I.

Regards,
Karen