diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3356.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3356.txt | 675 |
1 files changed, 675 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3356.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3356.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..51a70b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3356.txt @@ -0,0 +1,675 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group G. Fishman +Request for Comments: 3356 Bell Laboratories +Obsoletes: 2436 S. Bradner +Category: Informational Harvard University + August 2002 + + Internet Engineering Task Force and International + Telecommunication Union - Telecommunications + Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document provides guidance to aid in the understanding of + collaboration on standards development between the International + Telecommunication Union -- Telecommunication Standardization Sector + (ITU-T) and the Internet Society (ISOC) / Internet Engineering Task + Force (IETF). It is an update of and obsoletes RFC 2436. The + updates reflect changes in the IETF and ITU-T since RFC 2436 was + written. The bulk of this document is common text with ITU-T + Supplement 3 to the ITU-T A-Series Recommendations. + + Note: This was approved by ITU-T TSAG on 30 November 2001 as a + Supplement to the ITU-T A-Series of Recommendations (will be numbered + as A-Series Supplement 3). + +Table of Contents + + 1. Scope...........................................................2 + 2. Introduction ...................................................2 + 3. Guidance on collaboration.......................................3 + 3.1 How to interact on ITU-T or IETF work items.....................3 + 3.2 Representation..................................................4 + 3.3 Document sharing................................................7 + 3.4 Simple cross referencing........................................8 + 3.5 Additional items................................................8 + 4. Security Considerations........................................10 + 5. Non-normative references.......................................10 + 6. Acknowledgements...............................................10 + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + 7. Changes since RFC 2436.........................................10 + 8. Author's addresses.............................................11 + 9. Full Copyright Statement.......................................12 + +1. Scope + + This document provides guidance to aid in the understanding of + collaboration on standards development between the ITU-T and the + Internet Society (ISOC) / Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). + + In the IETF, work is done in Working Groups (WG), mostly through + open, public mailing lists rather than face-to-face meetings. WGs + are organized into Areas, each Area being managed by two co-Area + Directors. Collectively, the Area Directors comprise the Internet + Engineering Steering Group (IESG). + + In the ITU-T, work is defined by study Questions which are worked on + mostly through meetings led by Rapporteurs. Questions are generally + grouped within Working Parties (WPs) led by a WP Chairman. Working + Parties report to a parent Study Group led by a SG Chairman. + +2. Introduction + + The telecommunication industry is faced with an explosion in growth + of the Internet and other IP (Internet Protocol) based networks. + Operators, manufacturers and software/application providers alike are + reconsidering their business directions and Standards Development + Organizations and Forums and Consortia are facing an immense + challenge to address this situation. + + These challenges were considered by TSAG in September 1998 and IETF + shortly thereafter, when it was initially recognized that the ITU-T + and ISOC/IETF were already collaborating in a number of areas, and + that this collaboration must be strengthened within the context of + changes in work emphasis and direction within the ITU-T on studies + related to IP based networks. + + For example, many Study Groups already address aspects of IP based + networks. There are many topics of interest to ITU-T Study Groups in + the IP area that should be investigated (e.g., signaling, routing, + security, numbering & addressing, integrated management, performance, + IP - telecom interworking, access). Since many of these topics are + also being investigated by the IETF, there is a requirement for close + collaboration. + + + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + The current level of cooperation between the ITU-T and the IETF + should be built upon to ensure that the competence and experience of + each organization is brought to bear in the most effective manner and + in collaboration with the other. This document provides guidelines + for collaboration between the ITU-T and the IETF. + +3. Guidance on Collaboration + + This section builds on existing collaborative processes and details + some of the more important guidance points that each organization + should be aware of for effective collaboration. + +3.1 How to Interact on ITU-T or IETF Work Items + + Study Groups that have identified work topics that are IP-related + should evaluate the relationship with topics defined in the IETF. + Current IETF Working Groups and their charters (IETF definition of + the scope of work) are listed in the IETF archives (see section 3.5). + + A Study Group may decide that development of a Recommendation on a + particular topic may benefit from collaboration with the IETF. The + Study Group should identify this collaboration in its work plan + (specifically in that of each Question involved), describing the goal + of the collaboration and its expected outcome. + + An IETF Working Group should also evaluate and identify areas of + relationship with the ITU-T and document the collaboration with the + ITU-T Study Group in its charter. The following sections outline a + process that can be used to enable each group to learn about the + other's new work items. + +3.1.1 How the ITU-T Learns About Existing IETF Work Items + + The responsibility is on individual Study Groups to review the + current IETF Working Groups to determine if there are any topics of + mutual interest. Should a Study Group believe that there is an + opportunity for collaboration on a topic of mutual interest, it + should contact both the IETF Working Group Chair and the Area + Director(s) responsible. + +3.1.2 How the ITU-T learns about proposed new IETF work items + + The IETF maintains a mailing list for the distribution of proposed + new work items among standards development organizations. The IETF + forwards draft charters for all new and revised Working Groups and + Birds Of a Feather session announcements to the IETF NewWork mailing + list. An ITU-T mail exploder is subscribed to this list. It is + recommended that each Study Group subscribe to this ITU-T exploder, + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + which is maintained by the TSB. Members of the SG-specific listname + may include the SG Chairman, SG Vice Chairmen, Working Party + Chairmen, concerned Rapporteurs, other experts designated by the SG + and the SG Counselor. This will enable the SGs to monitor the new + work items for possible overlap or interest to their Study Group. It + is expected that this mailing list will see a few messages per month. + Each SG Chairman, or designated representative, may provide comments + on these charters by responding to the IESG mailing list at + iesg@ietf.org clearly indicating their ITU-T position and the nature + of their concern. Plain-text email is preferred on the IESG mailing + list. + + It should be noted that the IETF turnaround time for new Working + Group charters is two weeks. As a result, the mailing list should be + consistently monitored. + +3.1.3 How the IETF Learns About ITU-T Work Items + + The ITU-T work programme is documented in the Questions of each Study + Group. These can be found on the ITU-T web site. + + Study Groups should send updates to the IETF NewWork mailing list as + they occur. Area Directors or WG Chairs should provide comments to + the relevant SG Chairman in cases of possible overlap or interest. + +3.2 Representation + + ISOC, including its standards body IETF, is a Sector Member of the + ITU-T. As a result, ISOC delegates are therefore afforded the same + rights as other ITU-T Sector Members (see 3.2.1). Conversely, ITU-T + delegates may participate in the work of the IETF as representatives + of the ITU-T (see 3.2.2). To promote collaboration it is useful to + facilitate communication between the organizations as further + described below. + +3.2.1 IETF Recognition at ITU-T + + Participants from the IETF may participate in ITU-T meetings as ISOC + delegates if the appropriate IETF Working Group (or Area) has + approved their attendance. This approval will be communicated to the + TSB in the form of a registration for a particular ITU-T meeting by + the IAB Chair. + +3.2.2 ITU-T Recognition at ISOC/IETF + + ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to + attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking + authoritatively on behalf of the activities of the Study Group (or a + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + particular Rapporteur Group). The Study Group Chairman sends the + ITU-T list of delegates by email to the Working Group chair, with a + copy to the Area Directors, and also to the Study Group. Note that, + according to IETF process, opinions expressed by any such delegate + are given equal weight with opinions expressed by other working group + participants. + +3.2.3 Communication Contacts + + To foster ongoing communication between the ITU-T and IETF, it is + important to identify and establish contact points within each + organization. Contact points may include: + + 1) ITU-T Study Group Chairman and IETF Area Director + + An IETF Area Director is the individual responsible for overseeing + a major focus of activity with a scope similar to that of an ITU-T + Study Group Chairman. These positions are both relatively long- + term (of several years) and offer the stability of contact points + between the two organizations for a given topic. + + 2) ITU-T Rapporteur and IETF Working Group Chair + + An IETF Working Group Chair is an individual who is assigned to + lead the work on a specific task within one particular Area with a + scope similar to that of an ITU-T Rapporteur. These positions are + working positions (of a year or more) that typically end when the + work on a specific topic ends. Collaboration here is very + beneficial to ensure the actual work gets done. + + 3) Other Contact Points + + It may be beneficial to establish additional contact points for + specific topics of mutual interest. These contact points should + be established early in the work effort, and in some cases the + contact point identified by each organization may be the same + individual. + + Note that the current IETF Area Directors and Working Group Chairs + can be found in the IETF Working Group charters. The current ITU-T + Study Group Chairmen and Rapporteurs are listed on the ITU-T web + page. + +3.2.4 Communication + + Informal communication between contact points and experts of both + organizations is encouraged. However, note that formal communication + from an ITU-T Study Group, Working Party or Rapporteur to an + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + associated IETF contact point must be explicitly approved and + identified as coming from the Study Group, Working Party or + Rapporteur Group, respectively. Formal communication from the ITU-T + to the IETF should be addressed to the appropriate Working Group + Chairs and Area Directors with a copy to the email address + "statements@ietf.org." These communications are placed by the IETF + onto a liaison statements web page at + http://www.ietf.org/IESG/liaison.html. An individual at the IETF is + assigned responsibility for dealing with each communication that is + received. The name and contact information of the responsible person + is listed with the links to the communications on this web page. + + Conversely, formal communication from an IETF Working Group or Area + Director must also be explicitly approved and identified before + forwarding to any ITU-T contact. This approval is indicated in IETF + communication by copying the appropriate Working Group Chairs and + Area Directors. 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). This would cover such things as + comments on documents and requests for input. The approved + communication is simply emailed from one body contact to another (the + appropriate mailing lists, as described in 3.2.5 may be copied). + +3.2.5 Mailing Lists + + All IETF Working Groups and all ITU-T Study Group Questions have + associated mailing lists. + + In the IETF, the mailing list is the primary vehicle for discussion + and decision-making. It is recommended that the ITU-T experts + interested in particular IETF Working Group topics subscribe to and + participate in these lists. IETF WG mailing lists are open to all + subscribers. The IETF Working Group mailing list subscription and + archive information are noted in each Working Group's charter. In + the ITU-T, the TSB has set up formal mailing lists for Questions, + Working Parties and other topics within Study Groups (more detail can + be found on the ITU website). These mailing lists are typically used + for discussion of ITU-T contributions. Note that individual + subscribers to this list must be affiliated with an ITU-T member (at + this time, there is no blanket inclusion of all IETF participants as + members, however, as a member, ISOC may designate representatives to + subscribe). Alternatively, ITU-T members operate personal mailing + lists on various topics with no restrictions on membership (e.g., + IETF participants are welcome). + + + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + +3.3 Document Sharing + + During the course of ITU-T and IETF collaboration it is important to + share working drafts and documents among the technical working + groups. Initially proposed concepts and specifications typically can + be circulated by email (often just repeating the concept and not + including the details of the specification) on both the IETF and + ITU-T mailing lists. In addition, working texts (or URLs) of draft + Recommendations, Internet Drafts or RFCs may also be sent between the + organizations as described below. + + Internet Drafts are available on the IETF web site. The ITU-T can + make selected ITU-T documents available in a common FTP area on the + ITU-T web site. Although a communication can point to a URL where a + non-ASCII document (e.g., Word) can be downloaded, Word attachments + to an IETF mailing list are discouraged. It should also be + recognized that the official version of all IETF documents are in + ASCII. + +3.3.1 IETF to ITU-T + + IETF documents (e.g., Internet Drafts) can be submitted to a Study + Group as a Contribution from ISOC. In order to ensure that the IETF + has properly authorized this, the IETF Working Group must agree that + the specific drafts are of mutual interest, that there is a benefit + in forwarding them to the ITU-T for review, comment and potential use + and that the document status is accurately represented in the cover + letter. Once agreed, the appropriate Area Directors would review the + Working Group request and give approval. The contributions would + then be forwarded (with the noted approval) to the TSB for + circulation as a Study Group Contribution (see 3.2.4). + +3.3.2 ITU-T to IETF + + A Study Group or Working Party may send texts of draft new or revised + Recommendations, clearly indicating their status, to the IETF as + contributions in the form of Internet Drafts. Internet Drafts are + IETF temporary documents that expire six months after being + published. The Study Group or Working Party must decide that there + is a benefit in forwarding them to the IETF for review, comment and + potential use. Terms of reference for Rapporteur Group meetings may + authorize Rapporteur Groups to send working documents, in the form of + Internet Drafts, to the IETF. + + In these cases, the document editor would be instructed to prepare + the contribution in Internet Draft format (in ASCII and optionally + postscript format as per [RFC2223]) and submit it to the Internet + Draft editor (email internet-drafts@ietf.org). Alternatively, the + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + Study Group, Working Party or Rapporteur Group could agree to post + the document on a web site and merely document its existence with a + short Internet Draft that contains a summary and the document URL. + The URL can point to a Word document as long as it is publicly + available and with the understanding that it will not be eligible for + publication as an RFC in that format. + + Both the Rapporteur and the Document Editor should be identified as + contacts in the contribution. The contribution must also clearly + indicate that the Internet Draft is a working document of a + particular ITU-T Study Group. + +3.3.3 ITU-T & IETF + + It is envisaged that the processes of 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 will often be + used simultaneously by both an IETF Working Group and an ITU-T Study + Group to collaborate on a topic of mutual interest. + + It is also envisaged that the outcome of the collaboration will be + the documentation in full by one body and its referencing by the + other (see section 3.4 for details). That is, common or joint text + is discouraged because of the current differences in procedures for + document approval and revision. Where complementary work is being + undertaken in both organizations that will result in Recommendations + or RFCs, due allowance should be given to the differing perspectives, + working methods, and procedures of the two organizations. That is, + each organization should understand the other organization's + procedures and strive to respect them in the collaboration. + +3.4 Simple Cross Referencing + + ITU-T Recommendation A.5 describes the process for including + references to documents of other organizations in ITU-T + Recommendations. Information specific to referencing IETF RFCs is + found at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/sdo/ref-a.5/isocietf.html. + + IETF RFC2026, specifically section 7.1.1, describes the process for + referencing other open standards (like ITU-T Recommendations) in IETF + RFCs. + +3.5 Additional Items + +3.5.1 Several URLs to IETF procedures are provided here for information: + + RFC2223 - Instructions to RFC Authors, October 1997 + http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2223.txt + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + RFC2026 - The Internet Standards Process Revision 3, October 1996 + http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt + + RFC2418 - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures, September + 1998 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt + + Current list and status of all IETF RFCs: + ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt + + Current list and description of all IETF Internet Drafts: + ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.txt + + Current list of IETF Working Groups and their Charters: (includes + Area Directors and Chair contacts, Mailing list information, etc.) + http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html + + RFC Editor pages about publishing RFCs: + http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html + + Current list of liaison statements: + http://www.ietf.org/IESG/liaison.html + + IETF Intellectual Property Rights Notices: + http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html + +3.5.2 Current ITU-T information can be found on the ITU website: + (includes contacts, organization, Recommendations for purchase, + mailing list info, etc.) + + ITU-T Main page: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T + + List of all ITU-T Recommendations: + http://www.itu.int/publibase/itu-t/ + + ITU-T Study Group main page for Study Group NN (where NN is the + 2-digit SG number): + http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/comNN/index.html + + ITU-T Special Study Group on IMT-2000 and beyond: + http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/ssg/index.html + + Intellectual Property policies, forms and databases: + http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/dbase/patent/index.html + + + + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + ITU-T operational matters including: + Recommendation A.1 - Study Group work methods + Recommendation A.2 - Preparation of written contributions + Recommendation A.4 - Communication process between ITU-T and + forums and consortia + Recommendation A.5 - Include reference to documents of other + organizations in ITU-T Recs + Recommendation A.8 - Alternative Approval Process for + Recommendations: http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/rec/A + + ITU T Procedures including: + Resolution 1 - Rules of Procedure for ITU-T + Resolution 2 - Study Group responsibility and mandates + http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/wtsa-res/index.html + + Authors Guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations: + http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/guide/64657.html + + Templates for contributions: + http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com2/template/w2000tem/index.html + +4. Security Considerations + + Documents that describe cooperation procedures, like this one does, + have no direct Internet security implications. + +5. Non-normative references + + [RFC2026] Bradner. S, " The Internet Standards Process -- Revision + 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. + + [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", + RFC 2223, October 1997. + + [RFC2436] Brett, R., Bradner, S. and G. Parsons, "Collaboration + between ISOC/IETF and ITU-T", RFC 2436, October 1998. + +6. Acknowledgements + + This document is based on the text from RFC 2436 and benefited + greatly from discussions during the November 2001 ITU-T TSAG meeting. + +7. Changes since RFC 2436 + + The wording has been cleaned up in a number of places, a few + additional references have been provided, and the details of the + cooperation process have been modified slightly. + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + + Sec 3.2.1 - Registration for IETF representatives to ITU-T meetings + is now done by IAB Chair instead of the ISOC VP for Standards. + Sec 3.2.2 - Notice of ITU-T delegates to IETF Working Group meetings + is now sent to the Working Group chairs and appropriate Area + Directors instead of the ISOC VP for Standards. + Sec 3.2.4 - Official communications from the ITU-T to the IETF now + are sent to the appropriate Working Group Chairs and Area + Directors with a copy to the email address "statements@ietf.org" + instead of to the ISOC VP for Standards. A description of the new + IETF liaison statements web page was added. Official approval of + messages from the IETF to the ITU-T is now indicated by having the + appropriate Working Group Chairs and Area Directors copied on the + message. + Sec 3.3 - A description of the new ITU-T common FTP area was added. + Sec 3.3.1 - The appropriate Area Directors now review documents to be + sent to the ITU-T instead of the ISOC VP for Standards. + Annex A was removed as unneeded. + +8. Author's addresses + + Gary Fishman + Bell Laboratories + 101 Crawfords Corner Road + Room 4D-605B + Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 + USA + +1 732 949 3401 + EMail: garyfishman@lucent.com + + + Scott Bradner + Harvard University + 29 Oxford St. + Cambridge MA 02138 + USA + +1 617 495 3864 + EMail: sob@Harvard.edu + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3356 IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines August 2002 + + +9. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Fishman Informational [Page 12] + |