Subject: [its] Proposal to advance towards disseminating SDO documents for standards work

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:46:41 +0100

Dear ITS participants who also participate in external SDOs: ETSI, ISO,
IEEE,

Several times you expressed needs for IETF to review SDO documents which
are private, but could be used by standards contributors.

Several members of ITS public list may express interest to review the
documents and provide technical feedback.

But there are three problems:
- typically IETF feedback is formalized, there are official 'liaison'
   statements.  They take public debate into account, public Internet
   Drafts, etc.
- some IETF-minded people may prefer to offer feedback under the form
   of neutral yet public discussion, which includes study and analyze,
   instead of definitive personal statements.
- this list ITS at IETF is just an email list, it doesn't have the
   backing of IETF under any form.  Tomorrow the list may disappear
   altogether.  This discussion on ITS list is not yet Standards work.

I propose the following way forward: help us form an official Working
Group.  At that point the SDO documents could be disseminated without
worry within the Working Group, because it would be Standards work.

To achieve that, please comment on the Draft Charter proposal.
Alternatively, please write drafts expressing oppinion which is relevant
to SDO and expresses what SDO needs from IETF.

Thank you in advance,

Alex

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:40:28 -0800

Hi Alexandru,
>documents and provide technical feedback.

When I have to read a draft I may also have to read some of the work 
it references.  If access to that work is not free, I generally give 
up on the draft.  I am not asking for that work to be made free.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:36:28 +0100

> Dear ITS participants who also participate in external SDOs: ETSI, ISO,

I didn't work in other SDOs but maybe in future, we already have the
IETF, others have different work flow,

> are private, but could be used by standards contributors.

Yes, I agree because the Internet community is a very wide community,

>    statements.  They take public debate into account, public Internet

Why private, private stuff are for private sectors, yes public is more
open to community (volunteering), and more accessed by end-users.
Don't see the problem,

>    instead of definitive personal statements.

don't understand this point.

>    altogether.  This discussion on ITS list is not yet Standards work.

Yes that is why we need to propose to an IETF WG. We should not
discuss very deep, just framework, and applicability, after accepted
and liasened then we progress.

> worry within the Working Group, because it would be Standards work.

I think that is ok
> to SDO and expresses what SDO needs from IETF.

IMO, we do the internet work standard, they don't do that, so they
need the IETF,

AB