OASIS Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC

May I suggest removing my name as the contact on the liaisons. :-)

Wrt "We do have some time for the TC to consider this, and for the editors to refine the cover letters":

Two points: "time" and "author"

Time:

IMHO you have less time than this sentence implies. Recall the the OASIS Liaison Process is quite time-consuming and we lost 6 months back when we sent our first liaison because this wasn't taken into account and we were two days late. The process "may" occur more quickly but the one time we went thru it before it took the absolute maximum allowable by the policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison/liaison-policy-4-0/). I assume the administrivia paperwork required in the policy is already satisfied by the original submission, but that is just my opinion and OASIS Legal would need to concur. And I also assume that since this is an ongoing issue, that hopefully you would not need the max of the '`15 days for the President to review' followed by 30 days for member comments (whose clock starts at request time which is after the President agrees and takes days in its own right to post), after which the President has no earlier than 15 days to actually send and no more than 45 days.

I would think everyone would benefit if OASIS Staff put together a timeline - with hopefully less than these maximums for this particular case - so that the liaison could get in sooner.

In my experience, the later it is submitted, the higher the likelihood it will get punted further down the line like they did in that initial meeting. It doesn't matter that the docs are mostly the same, certain delegations will (grightly in the opinion of many) say that two documents totaling over 500 pages requires time to review to make sure those are the only changes. And do note that since this is last meeting of a 4-year period, punting will create significant delays.

I strongly recommend you move expeditiously on this.

Author:

The wording of the sentence implies the document is coming from the editor. I assume the ITU (the Russian and Iranian delegations in particular - since they are who forced this issue and have proven very adept at exploiting every loophole) are looking for input from OASIS not from the editors. So the liaison will come from the TC via OASIS (since isn't that what OASIS Policy says has has to happen unless the OASIS Board agrees to any deviations?). 

As noted at today's TC meeting (1st session), we will regard the spec submission edits as complete tonight, failing any objections at the two TC sessions today.  We will take any further comments on the draft cover letters through Jul 30, and send out a proposed final copy for final feedback on July 31, on which we will seek out final management signoff (which is not expected to be a lengthy process).  Our internal deadline for posting back to ITU-T SG17 in time for its early September plenary meeting is August 15, and their official deadline for receipt is August 20.  And we'll like to send earlier if possible.  We will plan to bring back to the TC an official CD (or errata) vote, to align the two publication sets, at the end of the SG17 plenary.

Cordially JBC

Wrt "We do have some time for the TC to consider this, and for the editors to refine the cover letters":

Two points: "time" and "author"

Time:

IMHO you have less time than this sentence implies. Recall the the OASIS Liaison Process is quite time-consuming and we lost 6 months back when we sent our first liaison because this wasn't taken into account and we were two days late. The process "may" occur more quickly but the one time we went thru it before it took the absolute maximum allowable by the policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison/liaison-policy-4-0/). I assume the administrivia paperwork required in the policy is already satisfied by the original submission, but that is just my opinion and OASIS Legal would need to concur. And I also assume that since this is an ongoing issue, that hopefully you would not need the max of the '`15 days for the President to review' followed by 30 days for member comments (whose clock starts at request time which is after the President agrees and takes days in its own right to post), after which the President has no earlier than 15 days to actually send and no more than 45 days.

I would think everyone would benefit if OASIS Staff put together a timeline - with hopefully less than these maximums for this particular case - so that the liaison could get in sooner.

In my experience, the later it is submitted, the higher the likelihood it will get punted further down the line like they did in that initial meeting. It doesn't matter that the docs are mostly the same, certain delegations will (grightly in the opinion of many) say that two documents totaling over 500 pages requires time to review to make sure those are the only changes. And do note that since this is last meeting of a 4-year period, punting will create significant delays.

I strongly recommend you move expeditiously on this.

Author:

The wording of the sentence implies the document is coming from the editor. I assume the ITU (the Russian and Iranian delegations in particular - since they are who forced this issue and have proven very adept at exploiting every loophole) are looking for input from OASIS not from the editors. So the liaison will come from the TC via OASIS (since isn't that what OASIS Policy says has has to happen unless the OASIS Board agrees to any deviations?).