SC22/WG20 N1017
From
mdeane@ANSI.org Tue Feb 11 23:18:59 2003
From:
Matthew Deane <mdeane@ANSI.org>
To:
"'Kenneth Whistler'" <kenw@sybase.com>,
"'gimgs@asadal.cs.pusan.ac.kr'",
<gimgs@asadal.cs.pusan.ac.kr>
Cc:
"'John Hill'" John.Hill@eng.sun.com
Subject:
RE: result of resolution 01-18: LB - liaison with IETF
Date:
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:02:23 -0500
Dear
Ken and Prof. Kim,
The
Category C liaison request was approved within SC 22 and this
information
was sent to IETF requesting that they confirm their acceptance
of this
liaison. IETF responded with a question
of why Category A wasn't
approved.
I
responded that the following resolution was passed at the Hawaii Plenary:
Resolution
01-18: Letter Ballot - Establishment of Liaison with IETF
In
response to the request from WG20 (N3284) to establish a liaison with
IETF,
JTC 1/SC22 instructs its Secretariat to issue an SC22 Letter Ballot on
the
following:
The
Internet Engineering Task Force has requested a Category A liaison with
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22.
The Rationale for this request is contained in document
N3284.
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22 agrees instead to offer IETF a category C liaison
with
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22.
Unanimous
Although
I wasn't in attendance in Hawaii, I gathered from those in
attendance
that the following was the rationale was the reason why C was
offered
instead of A:
As the
request came from a SC 22 working group and members felt that a
Category
C liaison would accomplish all of the specifics of the request,
they
decided that it was more appropriate to offer a Category C liaison.
The
subsequent letter ballot request to the resolution was approved, and
thus
the Category C liaison relationship was offered.
I
notified them that if IETF wishes to resubmit the request with rationale
as to
why Category A is more appropriate, I will be more than happy to
re-circulate
the request to SC 22 members. I have
yet to receive a response
from
IETF.
If you
have any questions, let me know. Good
luck with the rest of your
meetings.
Best
regards,
Matt