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