IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships
draft-iab-liaison-mgt-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten |
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Allison Mankin |
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2005-06-06
|
03 | (System) | This was part of a ballot set with: draft-baker-liaison-statements |
2005-04-05
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Shepherding AD has been changed to Brian Carpenter from Harald Alvestrand |
2005-01-25
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-01-21
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-01-21
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-01-21
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-01-20
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Harald Alvestrand |
2005-01-18
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten |
2004-12-13
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2004-12-10
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-12-10
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-iab-liaison-mgt-03.txt |
2004-12-10
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
2004-12-06
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Thomas Narten |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-12-16 by Amy Vezza |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Alex Zinin |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot comment] For draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt: > In general, a liaison relationship is most valuable when there are > areas of technical development of … [Ballot comment] For draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt: > In general, a liaison relationship is most valuable when there are > areas of technical development of mutual interest. For the most > part, SDO's would rather leverage existing work done by other > organizations than recreate it themselves (and they would like their > own standards work used rather than abused/recreated!). Establishing > a liaison relationship can provide the framework for ongoing > communications to s/abused/something else? I would expect others outside the IETF to read this, and this term is not so good for them. > communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely. He or she > may use any businesslike approach to that necessary, from private > communications to public communications, and bringing in other > parties as needed. If a communication from a peer organization is senetence doesn't parse. > All outgoing liaison statements will be copied to IETF Secretariat by > the liaison statement page. Not sure what this means exactly. Is this specifying a fixed procedure? For most readers, they won't understand what this procedure is supposed to be. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have … [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have generated, or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement, and must advise the Area Director(s) that the liaison statement has been sent by copying the appropriate Area Directors on the message. Working group chairs need to have some working group consensus on liaison statements - or must work from past working group consenses. They need to consult the group. So please come up with some wording that includes some consultation and some form of agreement from the working group community - I will eschew wordsmithing it myself - the editor is very much more adept than I. About draft-baker-liaison-statements: Please change IETF/ISOC in the abstract and intro (and in Harald's writeup) to IETF. The doc says that IETF/ISOC makes liaison with other SDO's but the only time it was IETF/ISOC and not just IETF was with ITU. In general, though we appreciate ISOC very much :), it's IETF that is the SDO. Thanks! |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] About draft-baker-liaison-statements: Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through … [Ballot comment] About draft-baker-liaison-statements: Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through 4, and the title (singular) "Procedure", make it hard for a working group or AD to realize that the useful advice is hidden in there. I wonder if it might be possible for the title or abstract to include more of hint hint that this document also gives guidelines about the useful information flows in liaison relationships. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through 4, and the … [Ballot comment] Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through 4, and the title (singular) "Procedure", make it hard for a working group or AD to realize that the useful advice is hidden in there. I wonder if it might be possible for the title or abstract to include more of hint hint that this document also gives guidelines about the useful information flows in liaison relationships. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through 4, and the … [Ballot comment] Section 5 is very nicely done, with very good advice in it. But the formal nature of Sections 1 through 4, and the title (singular) "Procedure", make it hard for a working group or AD to realize that the useful advice is hidden in there. I wonder if it might be possible for the title or abstract to include more of hint hint that this document also gives guidelines about the useful information flows in liaison relationships. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have … [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have generated, or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement, and must advise the Area Director(s) that the liaison statement has been sent by copying the appropriate Area Directors on the message. Working group chairs need to have some working group consensus on liaison statements - or must work from past working group consenses. They need to consult the group. So please come up with some wording that includes some consultation and some form of agreement from the working group community - I will eschew wordsmithing it myself - the editor is very much more adept than I. About draft-baker-liaison-statements: |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have … [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have generated, or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement, and must advise the Area Director(s) that the liaison statement has been sent by copying the appropriate Area Directors on the message. Working group chairs need to have some working group consensus on liaison statements - or must work from past working group consenses. They need to consult the group. So please come up with some wording that includes some consultation and some form of agreement from the working group community - I will eschew wordsmithing it myself - the editor is very much more adept than I. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have … [Ballot discuss] About draft-iab-liaison-mgt: For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF working group, the working group chair(s) must have generated, or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement, and must advise the Area Director(s) that the liaison statement has been sent by copying the appropriate Area Directors on the message. Working group chairs need to have some working group consensus on liaison statements - or must work from past working group consenses. They need to consult the groups. So please come up with some wording that includes some consultations and some form of agreement from the working group community - I don't think I can wordsmith it myself - you're so much more adept than I. |
2004-12-02
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2004-12-01
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] Comments based on review by (MIB Doctor) Dan Romascanu. He found some inconsistencies between the two documents that we may want to clean … [Ballot comment] Comments based on review by (MIB Doctor) Dan Romascanu. He found some inconsistencies between the two documents that we may want to clean up and/or clarify. Below are his findinsg with even suggested text for fixing. http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt 1. In section 1.1 the definition of the 'liaison manager' seems un-appropriate and not consistent with http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt. Being a 'liaison manager' is certainly not only about agreeing to be one. OLD: Liaison manager: As defined by [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt], an IETF person who agrees to manage a liaison relationship for the IETF. NEW: Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure that communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as defined by sections 2.2 and 3 in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]. 2. section 2.1.1.6 - There is one more category of liaison purpose that is worth mentioning in my opinion. This is the case when a response is being sent to another SDO as result of a request for comments on one or more documents that belong to the peer organization. Suggested bullet to add: NEW: In Response to a Request for Comments: The liaison statement includes a response to a request for comment from the peer organization on one or more of its documents, and it expects no further response. http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt 1. The Abstract and Title of this document seem to indicate that this document refers only to IAB liaisons. However section 5.2.4 in http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt indicates that this document specifies the process for generating and approving IETF liaisons: The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison statements is a matter of IETF process, and is specified in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]. I would suggest a change in the Abstract, and maybe also the title to clarify this. For example the title could be changed as follows: OLD: IAB Processes for management of liaison relationships NEW: IAB Processes for management of IETF and IAB liaison relationships While the Abstract could be changes as follows: OLD: This document discusses the procedures the IAB uses to select organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with. It further discusses the expectations that the IAB has of such organizations and of the people assigned to manage those relationships. NEW: The IAB plays an important role in the process of maintaining IETF liaisons with other organizations, as well as manages liaisons of itself. This document discusses the procedures the IAB and IETF uses to select organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with. It further discusses the expectations that the IAB and IETF have of such organizations and of the people assigned to manage those relationships. *** matchref -- match citations and references. Input file: draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt !! Duplicate reference: P016 L027: [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt] P019 L010: [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]). !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P016 L032: [ITU.ietf.guidelines] !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P016 L041: [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P016 L044: [RFC3356] Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task |
2004-12-01
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART His review of draft-iab-liaison-mgt: Since it's not a specification it's acceptable as it is, but I suggest … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART His review of draft-iab-liaison-mgt: Since it's not a specification it's acceptable as it is, but I suggest a few enhancements: - 1.0: "Individual members of the IETF are appointed as liaison managers or representatives to other organizations by the IAB or IESG as appropriate." s/members/participants/. The concept of IETF "membership" is risky to bring up. Use "participant" instead. In text below, "participant" is used (correctly). - 1.0: "o provide authenticated information of one organization's dependencies on the other's work." I think "authoritative" is what you're after, rather than "authenticated". - 2.2 and 2.3: a sentence about interaction between IETF liaison managers (and maybe between representatives to different SDOs) would be good. Times and responsibilities change, and what were once clean relationships overlap. For example, both MFA and ITU-T are concerned with MPLS signaling -- their liaison managers and representatives need to coordinate. I suggest for 2.2 (managers): "IETF liaison managers should communicate and coordinate with other liaison managers where concerned technical activities overlap." and for 2.3 (representatives), something similar: "IETF liaison representatives should communicate and coordinate with liaison managers and other representatives where concerned technical activities overlap." and finally in 3 (summary of responsibilities): "o communicate and coordinate with other IETF liaison managers and representatives." - 2.4: Back in July we had this exchange: From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt Cc: iab@iab.org At 11:45 PM 16/07/2004, Scott W Brim wrote: >Hi Leslie. I've been spending a lot of time in ITU-land recently >and I have a suggestion for a change. You say: > > 2.4 Liaison Communications > > Communications between organizations use a variety of formal > and informal channels. The stated preference of the IETF, > which is largely an informal organization, is to use informal > channels, as these have historically worked well to expedite > matters. In some cases, however, more formal communications > are appropriate. In such cases, the established procedures of > many organizations use a form known as a "liaison statement". > Procedures for sending, managing, and responding to liaison > statements are discussed in [6]. > > >In my experience, where liaison statements are used you inevitably >have informal communication as well, sometimes lots of it. For >clarity, I suggest adding a sentence, before the last (just after >"liaison statement."): "Communication through informal channels may >also take place." I appreciate your point. Wouldn't it make more sense to say:... "In some cases, however, a more formal communication is appropriate, either as an adjunct to the informal channel, or in its place. In the case of formal communications, established procedures of many organizations ..." Geoff Geoff's proposal is okay with me. - Finally, idnits suggests it should have an IANA Considerations section. :-p |
2004-11-30
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02 document considers liaison relationships with other SDOs, but the draft-baker-liaison-statements-02 document considers liaison relationships with other SDOs, consortia and … [Ballot discuss] The draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02 document considers liaison relationships with other SDOs, but the draft-baker-liaison-statements-02 document considers liaison relationships with other SDOs, consortia and industry fora. The two documents should have the same scope. |
2004-11-30
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] I propose an alternative abstract for draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02. This may be expanded if the scope for the two document is supposed to … [Ballot comment] I propose an alternative abstract for draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02. This may be expanded if the scope for the two document is supposed to address liaison relationships with other SDOs, consortia and industry fora. This document discusses the procedures used by the IAB to establish and maintain liaison relationships with other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) as well as the appointment and responsibilities of IETF liaison managers and representatives. This document further discusses the expectations of the IAB for organizations with whom liaison relationships are established. In section 3 of draft-baker-liaison-statements-02: s/temporary document/business document/ In section 4 of draft-baker-liaison-statements-02: s/it is good if this could be automated/automation is desirable/ |
2004-11-30
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-11-29
|
03 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-11-29
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] Comments based on review by (MIB Doctor) Dan Romascanu. He found some inconsistencies between the two documents that we may want to clean … [Ballot comment] Comments based on review by (MIB Doctor) Dan Romascanu. He found some inconsistencies between the two documents that we may want to clean up and/or clarify. Below are his findinsg with even suggested text for fixing. http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt 1. In section 1.1 the definition of the 'liaison manager' seems un-appropriate and not consistent with http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt. Being a 'liaison manager' is certainly not only about agreeing to be one. OLD: Liaison manager: As defined by [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt], an IETF person who agrees to manage a liaison relationship for the IETF. NEW: Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure that communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as defined by sections 2.2 and 3 in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]. 2. section 2.1.1.6 - There is one more category of liaison purpose that is worth mentioning in my opinion. This is the case when a response is being sent to another SDO as result of a request for comments on one or more documents that belong to the peer organization. Suggested bullet to add: NEW: In Response to a Request for Comments: The liaison statement includes a response to a request for comment from the peer organization on one or more of its documents, and it expects no further response. http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt 1. The Abstract and Title of this document seem to indicate that this document refers only to IAB liaisons. However section 5.2.4 in http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaison-statements-02.txt indicates that this document specifies the process for generating and approving IETF liaisons: The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison statements is a matter of IETF process, and is specified in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]. I would suggest a change in the Abstract, and maybe also the title to clarify this. For example the title could be changed as follows: OLD: IAB Processes for management of liaison relationships NEW: IAB Processes for management of IETF and IAB liaison relationships While the Abstract could be changes as follows: OLD: This document discusses the procedures the IAB uses to select organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with. It further discusses the expectations that the IAB has of such organizations and of the people assigned to manage those relationships. NEW: The IAB plays an important role in the process of maintaining IETF liaisons with other organizations, as well as manages liaisons of itself. This document discusses the procedures the IAB and IETF uses to select organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with. It further discusses the expectations that the IAB and IETF have of such organizations and of the people assigned to manage those relationships. |
2004-11-29
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2004-11-28
|
03 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2004-11-28
|
03 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-12-02 by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Ballot has been issued by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-11-25
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-10-26
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS: We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2004-10-25
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2004-10-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Seems I did the wrong thing the previous time I requested a last call - changed state instead of hitting the "request last call" button … Seems I did the wrong thing the previous time I requested a last call - changed state instead of hitting the "request last call" button in the writeup. |
2004-10-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-10-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Last Call was requested by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-10-09
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-10-09
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-10-09
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-10-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-10-07
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | AD Review comments: - section 1 assumes one (single) person managing a relationship. Do we want to consider the case of groups, or is that … AD Review comments: - section 1 assumes one (single) person managing a relationship. Do we want to consider the case of groups, or is that "the single manager bringing in people to help"? I'm thinking of ITU and IEEE as cases where one person is too few.... this comes along in 2.3, but it might be nice to prefigure it here. - the statement "and must be of demonstrable value in improving the quality of IETF specifications" is a bit iffy - sometimes the biggest benefits are eliminating the need for IETF specification, or increasing the adoption of IETF specifications... this is described well later; I would suggest dropping it here. - section 1 says "Individual members of the IETF are appointed as liaison managers or representatives to other organizations by the IAB or IESG as appropriate." This is the only place where it doesn't say or imply that the IAB appoints these. I'd like the doc to be consistent, and have all the selection in one place.... what was the intention here? - section 4 uses extensively "agreement is indicated by CCing htem on the message" - on the surface, this looks strange; a few words saying that the CC indicates the sender's belief that the statement is approved, and that the recipient is supposed to deal with any problems after the fact (by chastising the sender and sending a followup liaison, I assume), might be appropriate. Overall, I think this is ready for Last Call. |
2004-10-07
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-09-17
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Shepherding AD has been changed to Harald Alvestrand from Bert Wijnen |
2004-09-17
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Intended Status has been changed to BCP from None |
2004-09-17
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Merged with draft-baker-liaison-statements by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-14
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-07-14
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-iab-liaison-mgt-02.txt |
2004-06-17
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | --> current Liaison document complements draft baker liaison. Met with Secretariat … --> current Liaison document complements draft baker liaison. Met with Secretariat and Baker to run through two documents - the draft baker document provides a framework - some has been implemented. How to prioritize this activity is an outstanding matter. (next) The documents are to be meshed to allow the Secretariat to implement a mechanism to track liaison documents. Awaiting a new revision of the baker document, and the IAB document will be revised in accordance with that draft, reflecting what has been agreed on (next) Awaiting revised Baker draft |
2004-05-12
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | Still needs a revision |
2004-05-12
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-05-11 from 2004-02-16 |
2004-04-14
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | -> (current) Liaison document complements draft baker liaison. Met with … -> (current) Liaison document complements draft baker liaison. Met with Secretariat and Baker to run through two documents - the draft baker document provides a framework - some has been implemented. How to prioritize this activity is an outstanding matter. (next) The documents are to be meshed to allow the Secretariat to implement a mechanism to track liaison documents. Awaiting a new revision of the baker document, and the iab document will be revised in accordance with that draft, rflecting what has been agreed on |
2004-04-13
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD is watching::Revised ID Needed from AD is watching by Bert Wijnen |
2004-04-13
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | Mild edit needed after Fred Baker et al doc is also updated |
2004-02-16
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | State Change Notice email list have been change to , from |
2004-02-16
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | Document from IAB |
2004-02-16
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | Draft Added by Bert Wijnen |
2004-02-16
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-iab-liaison-mgt-01.txt |
2003-12-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-iab-liaison-mgt-00.txt |