Network Working Group R. Brett
Request for Comments: 2436 Nortel Networks
Category: Informational S. Bradner
Harvard University
G. Parsons
Nortel Networks
October 1998
Collaboration between ISOC/IETF and ITU-T
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 (1998). All Rights Reserved.
Overview
This document describes the collaboration process between the ITU-T
and ISOC/IETF. The process was documented by ITU-T at its TSAG
(Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group) meeting in
September 1998. All participants of this meeting (including Study
Group chairmen and the ISOC Vice President for Standards) assisted in
the creation of this document. Subsequently, it was sent to all
ITU-T Study Groups and ISOC/IETF to ensure that everyone was aware of
the process. Feedback is requested by the next meeting of TSAG in
April 1999. This document is identical to the document prodUCed by
TSAG.
Please send any comments on this document to ISOC at poised@tis.com
and for information to the ITU-T TSAG group at tsagco-op@itu.int
ISOC/IETF and ITU-T Collaboration
1 Scope
This Liaison is sent to all ITU-T Study Groups to encourage and aid
in the understanding of collaboration on standards development
between the ITU-T and the Internet Society (ISOC) / Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF). Feedback to TSAG is encouraged before
its next meeting in April 1999.
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 at its meeting in Geneva, 7-11 September 1998,
where it recognized that although the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF are already
collaborating in a number of areas, 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 (e.g., 7, 8 & 16) already address
several the ASPects of IP based networks. Further, new IP related
work activities are starting in other Study Groups (e.g., 4, 11 &
13). There are many potential areas 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
areas are also being investigated by the IETF, there is a requirement
for close collaboration.
Recommendations A.4, A.5 and A.6 already document the process for
working with other organizations and their documents. Since there
are no specific guidelines on the process of collaboration with the
IETF, this liaison is meant to provide that information. 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.
3 Guidance on Collaboration
TSAG has been made aware of several instances of existing successful
collaboration between the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF. This section builds
on this existing process and details some of the more important
guidance points that Study Groups should be aware of in their
collaboration with ISOC/IETF.
3.1 How to interact on ITU-T or IETF work items.
Study Groups that have identified work topics that are Internet
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. It is anticipated
that an IETF Working Group would 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 others 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
responsible.
3.1.2 How the ITU-T learns about proposed new IETF work items
The IETF maintains a mailing list for the distribution and discussion
of proposed new Working Group charters amongst the management team.
To add or change a subscription to this list, send a message to
iesg-secretary@ietf.org indicating who you are and that you would
like to subscribe to the New Work mailing list. Details on the list
process will be emailed to each subscriber.
It is recommended that each Study Group chairman (or a delegate)
subscribe to this list and monitor the new work items for possible
overlap or interest to their Study Group. It is expected that this
mailing list will see one or two messages per month. Chairmen should
identify their 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. It should be noted that the IETF
turnaround time for new Working Group charters is one week. As a
result, the mailing list should be consistently monitored.
3.1.3 How the IETF learns about ITU-T work items
An initial list of Internet related topics in ITU-T Study Groups
based on the situation as of 11 September is being provided to the
Vice President of Standards for ISOC for distribution to the
appropriate IETF interested individuals and will be copied to all
ITU-T Study Group Chairmen. The intention is for Study Groups to
forward updates to the Vice President of Standards for ISOC as they
occur.
It is expected that any IETF Working Group interest with the topics
being covered by the ITU-T will be forwarded to individual Study
Group Chairmen (or the lead Study Group Chairman) by the Vice
President of Standards for ISOC.
3.2 Representation
ISOC, including its standards body IETF, have been admitted by the
ITU Council to participate in the work of the ITU-T. As a result,
ISOC delegates are therefore afforded equivalent rights to those of
other ITU-T Study Group participants (see 3.2.1). Conversely, ITU-T
delegates may participate in the work of the IETF as individuals or
be recognized as ITU-T delegates (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 Vice President of Standards for ISOC.
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 on
behalf of the Study Group (or a particular Rapporteur Group). The
Study Group Chairman communicates the ITU-T list of delegates by
email to the Vice President of Standards for ISOC and also to the
Study Group. The email address of the Vice President of Standards
for ISOC is vp-standards@isoc.org.
3.2.3 Communication contacts
To foster ongoing communication between the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF, it
is important to identify and establish contact points within ITU-T
Study Groups for specific IETF topics of mutual interest. It is
beneficial to identify these contact points early and in some cases
the contact point identified by each organization may be the same
individual. It is responsibility of a Study Group to establish the
contact points with the IETF and maintain the list on its web page.
An example of communication contacts that is suggested to Study
Groups has both a high level and a working level:
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. 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.
Both the ITU-T and IETF may assign their contact point function(s) to
other individuals than those suggested as it deems appropriate.
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
associated IETF contact point must be explicitly approved and
identified as coming from the Study Group, Working Party or
Rapporteur Group, respectively. 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.
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 the ITU-T experts interested
in particular IETF working group topics subscribe to and participate
in these lists. 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).
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. Initial 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 or RFCs (Internet Drafts) may also be sent between
the organizations as described below.
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 and that there is a
benefit in forwarding them to the ITU-T for review, comment and
potential use. Once agreed, the Vice President Standards for ISOC
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.
3.3.2 ITU-T to IETF
A Study Group may send texts of draft new Recommendations 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 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 both 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 Study Group 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.
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 approval, revision
and stability of approved documents for publication by each body.
3.4 Simple cross referencing
ITU-T Recommendation A.5, specifically its Annex A and the
application guidelines attached, describes the process for
referencing IETF RFCs in ITU-T Recommendations. 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
Several URLs to IETF procedures are provided here for information:
RFC2223 - Instructions to RFCAuthors, October 1997
FTP://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2223.txt
RFC2026 - The Internet Standards Process Revision 3, October 1996
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt
RFC2418 - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures, September
1998 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2418.txt
Current list and status of all IETF RFCs ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-
notes/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
Current ITU-T information can be found on the ITU website: (includes
contacts, organization, Recommendations for purchase, mailing list
info, etc.) http://www.itu.int
4. Acknowledgments
The process was documented by ITU-T at its TSAG (Telecommunication
Standardization Advisory Group) meeting in September 1998. All
participants of this meeting (including Study Group chairmen and the
ISOC Vice President for Standards) assisted in the creation of this
document. Subsequently, it was sent to all ITU-T Study Groups and
ISOC/IETF to ensure that everyone was aware of the process. Feedback
is requested by the next meeting of TSAG in April 1999.
5. Security Considerations
This type of non-protocol document does not directly effect the
security of the Internet.
6. Authors' Addresses
ITU-T Contact:
R. F. Brett
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada
Phone: +1-613-828-0902
Fax: +1-613-828-9408
EMail: rfbrett@nortel.ca
ISOC Contact:
Scott O. Bradner
Harvard University
Holyoke Center, Room 876
1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Editor:
Glenn W. Parsons
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada
Phone: +1-613-763-7582
Fax: +1-613-763-4461
EMail: Glenn.Parsons@Nortel.ca
7. References
[A.4] ITU-T Recommendation A.4 - Communication process between
ITU-T and forums and consortia, October 1996.
[A.5] ITU-T Recommendation A.5 - Generic procedures for including
references to documents to other organizations in ITU-T
Recommendations, January 1998.
[A.6] ITU-T Recommendation A.6 - Cooperation and exchange of
information between ITU-T and national and regional
standards development organizations, September 1998.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC2026, October 1996.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFCAuthors",
RFC2223, October 1997.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC2418, September 1998.
8. Full ITU Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) ITU (1998). All Rights Reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and
microfilm, without permission in writing from the ITU.
9. Annex A
APPLICATION GUIDELINES ON REFERENCING DOCUMENTS FROM OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS
PART I - Developed by TSAG at its January 1998 Meeting
The following guidelines should be used in conjunction with the
relevant provisions of Recommendations A.3, A.4, A.5 and A.23.
1. Ownership/Change Control
- When considering using material from other organizations it is
preferable to only include references to other standards,
rather than incorporate text from a standard in the body of a
Recommendation. Exceptionally, full text incorporation is
necessary rather than a reference where Recommendations having
regulatory connotations are concerned.
- Reference should be made to the particular issue of a standard.
In this way the ITU-T is in control of what is actually
referenced even if the source organization updates the
standard.
- References to standards from other organizations should only be
made where those organizations continue to provide public
access to the version referenced even when updated versions are
issued.
- When a draft Recommendation is being prepared and the intention
is to reference a standard from another organization, that
organization should be advised by the TSB of the ITU-T's
intention and should be requested to notify the ITU-T of any
impending changes to the standard and of any reissues of the
standard. (This request may be part of the correspondence
described in Recommendation A.5, section 2.4.) It is however
the responsibility of the Study Group to regularly review its
Recommendations and check if the references are correct and if
necessary to reissue the Recommendation with revised references
(and where necessary make changes in the body of the
Recommendation where the reference is made.).
- Should an organization intend to remove completely an earlier
version of a standard the ITU-T should be advised so that it
can either incorporate the text in the Recommendation or change
the reference to a later version.
2. Access
- The objective is to have referenced standards freely available
via the Web so that people purchasing a Recommendation may get
access to the references. A warning should be given to
purchasers of ITU-T Recommendations that they may have to
additionally purchase the referenced standards. This could be
done by including a note to such effect in the introduction to
Recommendations where references are included.
- When developing a Recommendation where consideration is being
given to using references to other standards the Study Group
should investigate with the TSB whether the referenced text
will be available free of charge or if a payment will be
required. This should be taken into account by the Study Group
as it may influence the decision to use the reference.
3. IPR
- In principle, if the IPR policy of the organization owning a
referenced standard is more stringent than that of the ITU-T
then there should not be any IPR problems with including the
reference. However, this may not be the case with all
organizations. Further guidelines are being prepared by the
Director of the TSB.
4. Approval
- The approval procedures in Resolution 1 have to be followed for
Recommendations containing references (wholly or in part) to
standards from other bodies even in the case where the
Recommendation is just a reference to another standard.
PART II - Developed by TSAG at its September 1998 Meeting
The following guidelines should be used in conjunction with
Recommendation A.5.
1. Nested References
Issue: RFCs often contain references to related RFCs and ITU-T
Recommendations which, in turn, may contain references to other
RFCs and Recommendations. It is unclear how to handle these nested
references in the context of A.5.
Guideline: Each time an RFCis referenced within an ITU-T
Recommendation, all references within that RFCshould be listed in
the report documenting the decision of the Study Group. No further
treatment is necessary, although the Study Group may wish to
investigate those references further on a case-by-case basis. The
same guidelines apply when referencing the documents of other
organizations.
2. Subsequent Referencing of the Same Document
Issue: It is possible that the same RFCmay be considered for
referencing in multiple Recommendations. It is unclear what
evaluation is required in subsequent references.
Guideline: The justification for referencing the same document in
different Recommendations is likely to be different. Consequently,
it is important that separate evaluations be made each time the
document is referenced. However, only items 1 - 8 in Appendix I
(and Annex A) of Recommendation A.5 need to be completed if the
referenced organization has already been qualified per Section 3
of A.5. Since items 9 and 10 are dependent on the organization and
not on the document, they need to be completed only the first time
a document from that organization is being considered for
referencing and only if such information has not been documented
already.
3. Availability of Referenced Document
Issue: Paragraph 2.2.10 of A.5 requires that the contributing
Study Group member provide a full copy of the existing document.
It is unclear whether paper copies are mandatory or whether
electronic availability, for example, on a Web site, is
sufficient.
Guideline: The objective is to have referenced documents available
via the Web at no cost so that the Study Group members may proceed
with their evaluation. Accordingly, if a referenced document is
available in this manner, it is sufficient for the contributing
member to provide its exact location on the Web. On the other
hand, if the document is not available in this manner, a full copy
must be provided (in electronic format if permissible by the
referenced organization, otherwise in paper format).
4. Referencing of IETF Documents
Issue: It is unclear whether or not it is appropriate to reference
RFCs that are not on the standards track (the "Informational" and
"Experimental" RFCs) or those that are at the first level of
standardization (the "Proposed Standard" RFCs).
Guideline: Some outputs of organizations may not be appropriate
for normative referencing, others may not be appropriate for any
referencing, normative or informative. In the case of the IETF, it
is not appropriate to make any references to "Internet Drafts" or
to "Historic" RFCs as noted in A.5. In addition, it is not
appropriate to make normative references to RFCs that are
considered "Informational" or "Experimental". References to RFCs
that have the status of "Proposed Standards" should be made with
caution and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because
such standards are considered immature in the sense that they may
change if problems are found in real implementations or if better
solutions are identified.
5. IETF Address Changes
The electronic address of the IETF archives has changed.
Accordingly the addresses in items 4 and 9.8 of Annex A should be
changed, respectively to:
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html - for the IPR archive
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html - for the RFCarchive
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). 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.
