From mdeane@ANSI.org Tue Feb 11 23:18:59 2003 Message-ID: <2F81C8110D55D411882A0020356797B2027FE102@email1.ansi.org> From: Matthew Deane To: "'Kenneth Whistler'" , "'gimgs@asadal.cs.pusan.ac.kr'" Cc: "'John Hill'" Subject: RE: result of resolutikon 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