John Cowan wrote: > By the same token, I am the person who represents IETF concerns to > the Lojban community. No one has to make these roles official. If you _would_ claim to speak on behalf of the IETF there are two relevant RFCs: 4052 and 4053. From an IETF POV it is an official role (at least the incoming liaison statements like Mark's letter on hehalf of Unicode), there's a tracker, and you can get an account to manage your liaison statements, etc. The most important point is apparently that incoming statements are answered or forwarded to an appropriate WG (Chair) / area (AD) / IESG / IAB. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-liaison-guidelines is about the opposite direction (IETF to xyz). Martin or Randy could appoint you as "official" IETF LTRU liaison to the Lojban community (if the AD tolerates it), in theory. An "official" LTRU liaison to the 639 RA or JAC (replace proper title) could be an idea: That liaison (e.g. Peter) could request an extended guarantee covering 639-3 on behalf of LTRU, and the liaison from 639 (e.g. you) would answer it, and then Addison could copy an updated stability guarantee into 4646bis. Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.