RE: WG dcoument status

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Mark,

E-mails exchanged by people on this mailing list are not formal
communications. In ITU-T, a formal communication has to be voted (i.e. not
only done by a few colleagues), in IETF this has to be agreed by the WG.

> BTW The special case is not for "ITU people" but for "ITU T Study 
Group, Working Party or Rapporteur".

I am sorry, but people speaking on this mailing list don't represent in any
way the ITU-T point of view, but their own *personal* point of view. Stephen
has no more rights than Dimitri or I have. We are also member of ITU-T, and
in that case we could also speak as ITU-T members. Once again the only ITU-T
point of view that we have to consider here is the one received through
liaison statements.

To stay politically correct (not say something else), each one should avoid
to use his/her membership to some organization to impose his/her own ideas.

Rgds,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Mak, L (Leen) [mailto:lmak@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:44 AM
To: 'Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be'
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG dcoument status


Dimitri,

> 
> So "Why should we have "special cases" for ITU people, requirements
> or models, why aren't they proposing contributions as any other 
> IETFer does?"
> 

Para 3.2.4 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fishman-2436bis-01.txt
says
"Formal communication is intended to allow the
   sharing of positions between the IETF and the ITU-T outside of actual
   documents (as described in 3.3). "

BTW The special case is not for "ITU people" but for "ITU T Study 
Group, Working Party or Rapporteur".

Leen Mak.