[Search] [pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 rfc4053                   Best Current Practice
Network Working Group                                      S. Trowbridge
Internet-Draft                                       Lucent Technologies
Expires: July 21, 2005                                        S. Bradner
                                                      Harvard University
                                                                F. Baker
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        January 18, 2005


    Procedures for handling liaison statements to and from the IETF
                   draft-baker-liaison-statements-04

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming
   liaison statements from other standards development organizations
   (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and
   industry fora.  This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate
   with other organizations in the international standards community.

   The IETF expects that liaison statements might come from a variety of
   organizations, and it may choose to respond to many of those.  The
   IETF is only obligated to respond if there is an agreed liaison
   relationship, however.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Liaison Statements and their handling  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1   Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2   Liaison Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.1   Contents of a Liaison Statement  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
         2.2.1.1   Envelope Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
           2.2.1.1.1   From:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
           2.2.1.1.2   To:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           2.2.1.1.3   Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           2.2.1.1.4   Response Contact:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           2.2.1.1.5   Technical Contact: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           2.2.1.1.6   Purpose: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           2.2.1.1.7   Deadline:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         2.2.1.2   Liaison Content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
           2.2.1.2.1   Body:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
           2.2.1.2.2   Attachments: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3   Addressee Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4   Lifetime of a Liaison Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   3.  Tools for handling liaison statements  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1   Liaison Statements from other SDOs, Consortia, and
           Fora to IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.1.1   Liaison Statement Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.1.2   Mechanism for displaying Liaison Statements  . . . . . 10
     3.2   Communicating IETF information to other SDOs,
           consortia, and fora  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.1   Spontaneously generating Liaison Statements to
               other organizations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         3.2.1.1   Transmitting IETF documents to other
                   organizations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         3.2.1.2   Requests for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         3.2.1.3   Requesting comments on Work in Progress  . . . . . 11
         3.2.1.4   Requests for Other Actions (besides comments
                   on IETF drafts)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.2   Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements  . . . . . . 12
         3.2.2.1   Responding to Requests for Information . . . . . . 12



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


         3.2.2.2   Responding to Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . 12
         3.2.2.3   Responding to Request for Action . . . . . . . . . 13
         3.2.2.4   Generating Liaison Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 13

   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   A.  Implementation Road map  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     A.1   Phase I: Initial implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       A.1.1   Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       A.1.2   Actions on submission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   B.  Phase II: Additional instrumentation and responses to
       usage experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 23


























Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


1.  Introduction

   This document describes the procedure for generating and handling
   liaison statements between the IETF and other SDOs, so that IETF can
   effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international
   standards community.  These liaison statements are primarily
   exchanged between IETF and organizations with whom the IAB has
   created a liaison relationship (see [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]), although
   other organizations are not precluded.  The procedures described in
   this document encompass all liaisons statements received from SDOs,
   whether or not a formal liaison arrangement is in place between the
   SDO and the IETF.  Where no formal liaison arrangement is in place
   the IETF is not obligated to respond to the liaison statement.

   The implementation of the procedure and supporting tools is occurring
   in a minimum of three phases.  The initial phase has been the
   development of a prototype (in the best tradition of "rough consensus
   and running code"), by Sunny Lee of Foretec, in parallel with the
   development of this specification.  The second phase is the
   conversion of that prototype to an operational tool.  This
   operational tool lacks an automated tracking tool; rather, the
   liaison manager implements that in his or her own way.  The third
   phase will include that tracking tool.

   The specific supporting tools described in this document (and their
   functionality) are one possible way of providing automated support
   for the processes described in this document.  Because specific tools
   and their functionality will change over time, the descriptions in
   this document are to be considered examples only and are not a
   normative part of this specification.





















Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


2.  Liaison Statements and their handling

   Let us first define what a liaison statement is (and is not), and set
   reasonable expectations.  The expectations set forth in this section
   are normative for a liaison statement sent by any Standards
   Development Organization to the IETF.

2.1  Definitions

   For purposes of clarity, we use the following definitions:
   Addressee: The working group(s) or other party(s) in the IETF to whom
      a liaison statement is addressed.
   Assignee: The person responsible to act on a liaison statement,
      initially either the person to whom it was addressed or the chair
      of the group to which it was addressed.  The task may be
      reassigned to another person in the same or a different group as
      appropriate.
   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]
   Liaison statement: A letter as described in this document, exchanged
      between organizations.

2.2  Liaison Statements

   A Liaison Statement is a business letter sent by one standards
   organization to another.  These organizations may be at any level
   (working group, area, etc); generally, the sender and receiver are
   peer organizations.  A liaison statement may have any purpose, but
   generally the purpose is to solicit information, make a comment or
   request an action.

2.2.1  Contents of a Liaison Statement

   Liaison statements may be very formal or quite informal, depending on
   the rules of the body generating them.  Any liaison statement,
   however, will always contain certain information, much as an business
   letter does.  This information will include the following:

2.2.1.1  Envelope Information

   The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement.

2.2.1.1.1  From:

   The statement will indicate what body it is from; it may be from, for
   example, an IETF working group or area, an ITU-T Study Group, Working



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   Party, or Question, etc.  In this document, this body is the
   "sender".

2.2.1.1.2  To:

   The statement will indicate what body it is to.  In this document,
   this body is the "addressee".

2.2.1.1.3  Title:

   The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of
   its context and content.

2.2.1.1.4  Response Contact:

   The sender will indicate the electronic mail address that any
   response should be sent to.

2.2.1.1.5  Technical Contact:

   The sender will indicate one or more electronic mail addresses
   (persons or lists) that may be contacted for clarification of the
   liaison statement.

2.2.1.1.6  Purpose:

   While others are possible, a liaison statement generally has one of
   three purposes, and will clearly state its purpose using one of these
   labels:
   For Information: The liaison statement is to inform the addressee of
      something, and expects no response.
   For Comment: The liaison statement requests commentary from the
      addressee, usually within a stated time frame.
   For Action: The liaison statement requests that the addressee do
      something on the sender's behalf, usually within a stated time
      frame.
   In Response: The liaison statement includes a response to a liaison
      statement from the peer organization on one or more of its
      documents, and expects no further response.

2.2.1.1.7  Deadline:

   Liaison Statements that request comment or action will indicate when
   the comment or action is required.  If the addressee cannot
   accomplish the request within the stated period, courtesy calls for a
   response offering a more doable deadline or an alternative course of
   action.




Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


2.2.1.2  Liaison Content

   The following fields are the substance of the liaison statement.
   IETF participants use a wide variety of systems, meaning that
   document formats that are not universally readable are problematic.
   As a result, documents enclosed with the body or attachments should
   be in PDF, W3C HTML (without proprietary extensions), or ASCII text
   format.  If they were originally in a proprietary format, such as
   Microsoft Word, that file may also be sent, but should be accompanied
   by a generally readable file.

2.2.1.2.1  Body:

   As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains
   appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand.

2.2.1.2.2  Attachments:

   Attachments, if enclosed, may be in the form of documents sent with
   the liaison statement or may be URLs to similar documents including
   Internet Drafts.

2.3  Addressee Responsibilities

   The responsibilities of the addressee of a liaison statement are the
   same as the responsibilities of any business letter.  A liaison
   statement calls for appropriate consideration of its contents, and if
   a reply is requested and an appropriate relationship exists, a
   courteous authoritative reply within the expected time frame.  The
   reply may be that the information was useful, that it was not useful,
   that the requested action has been accomplished, it will be
   accomplished by a specified date, it will not be done for a specific
   reason, an answer to a question posed, or any other appropriate
   reply.

   A liaison statement, like any other temporary document, must be
   considered in terms of its relevance, importance, and its urgency.

   One hopes that a liaison statement will be sent to the right
   organization, but this cannot be assured; an SDO might send a liaison
   statement to a specific IETF area whose area director deems is better
   handled by one of the working groups, or it might be sent to one
   working group when it should have gone to another.  If a liaison
   statement arrives which appears misdirected, the assignee should
   promptly ask the liaison manager to redirect it appropriately.  In
   some cases, a liaison statement may require consideration by multiple
   groups within the IETF; in such cases, one assignee takes the lead
   and responsibility for developing a response.



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   Liaison Statements are always important to the body that sent them.
   Having arrived at the appropriate body, the liaison statement may be
   more or less important to the addressee depending on the contents of
   the liaison statement and the expertise of the sender.  If the
   liaison statement seeks to influence the direction of a working
   group's development, it should get the same consideration that any
   temporary document receives.  The working group chair may request the
   sender's contacts to make their case to the IETF working group in the
   same manner and on the same basis that an internet draft author makes
   his case.

   The urgency of a liaison statement is usually reflected in its
   deadline.  A liaison statement for informational purposes may have no
   deadline; in such a case, a courteous "thank you" liaison statement
   is called for, to inform the sender that the liaison statement was
   received, after which the working group may inform itself of the
   contents and close the document.  A liaison statement specifying a
   deadline, however, gives the addressee a finite opportunity to
   influence the activity of another body; if it fails to react in a
   timely fashion, it may miss this opportunity.

2.4  Lifetime of a Liaison Statement

   A liaison statement is a temporary document, much like an internet
   draft.  The normal expectation, if it affects IETF output, is that
   the resulting RFC will contain any relevant information that remains
   pertinent.  Retaining liaison statements that have been completely
   dealt with mostly serves to hide new ones and create the appearance
   of not dealing with them.

   However, unlike an internet draft, liaison statements are often the
   only record the IETF has of the communication with the peer SDO.  As
   such, some liaison statements are referred to for relatively long
   periods of time.

   As a result, the IETF will archive liaison statements that have been
   fully dealt with, along with any attachments that may have been
   relevant, but do so in a manner obviously distinct from current
   liaison statements.












Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


3.  Tools for handling liaison statements

   Some tools have been developed for the IETF.  Development is expected
   to continue.  This section describes the basic tool and its intended
   use.

3.1  Liaison Statements from other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora to IETF

   The process of handling a liaison statement is a little heavier than
   the handling of a business letter, however, because it is important
   to a relationship with another SDO established by the IAB.  To manage
   liaison statements, the IETF will offer three electronically
   accessible facilities: a form for submission of liaison statements, a
   mechanism organizing their contents and making them accessible, and a
   tracking system.  Initially, the tracking system will be a manual
   procedure used by the liaison manager; in the future, this should be
   automated.

3.1.1  Liaison Statement Submission

   The IETF Secretariat will provide an electronic method for submission
   of liaison statements.

   The liaison statement submission mechanism is a form that requests
   the information listed in Section 2.2.1 from the user.

   Submission of that information results in the following actions:
   o  creation of a display mechanism containing the envelope data in
      Section 2.2.1.1 and URLs pointing to the items from
      Section 2.2.1.2, an indication of whether the liaison statement
      has been replied to, and if so, on what date,
   o  the addition of a URL to the "outstanding liaison statements"
      summary mechanism,
   o  when an automated tracking system has been implemented, a
      tickler/status entry in the tracking system, assigned to the
      relevant chair or AD,
   o  an email to the assignee copying
      *  the liaison statement's technical contacts
      *  The supervisor of the assignee (if it is to a working group,
         the relevant Area Directors; if to an AD, the IETF Chair),
      *  The liaison manager for the sending SDO,
      *  an alias associated with the assignee (WG/BOF or other open
         mailing list, area directorate, IESG, IAB, etc.)
      This email should contain the URL to the liaison statement
      mechanism, text indicating that the liaison statement has arrived,
      requests appropriate consideration, and if a deadline is
      specified, a reply by the deadline.




Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   The assignee has the capability of interacting with the liaison
   manager and (once implemented) the tracking system, including
   replying, changing dates, reassignment, closing the liaison statement
   process, etc.

   The liaison manager or tracking system's "tickle" function
   periodically reminds the assignee by email that the liaison statement
   has not yet been closed.  This tickle email copies all of the above
   except the associated mailing alias.

3.1.2  Mechanism for displaying Liaison Statements

   The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement
   activity.  This consists of
   o  A submission mechanism,
   o  A status/management mechanism for each active or recently closed
      liaison statement, and zero or more associated files.

   The status/management mechanism contains a simple frame, showing the
   title of the liaison statement, the URL for its mechanism, and the
   organizations it is from and to.

   The display for liaison statement itself contains
   o  the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1),
   o  direct content (Section 2.2.1),
   o  URLs for the various associated files
   o  current status of the liaison statement: who it is assigned to,
      its due date, and its status,
   o  pointer to the liaison manager and tracking system entry for the
      liaison statement.
   o  reply-generation mechanism (see Section 3.2.2.4)

3.2  Communicating IETF information to other SDOs, consortia, and fora

   This includes liaison statements sent in reply to liaison statements
   sent by other bodies, and liaison statements being originated by the
   IETF.

3.2.1  Spontaneously generating Liaison Statements to other
      organizations

   Liaison Statements can be generated at a Working Group, Area, or IETF
   level to another organization.  The respective (co)chair(s) are
   responsible for judging the degree of consensus for sending the
   particular liaison statement and what the content should be.  The
   amount of consensus required to send a liaison statement varies
   greatly depending on its content.  This section gives some rough
   guidance about how much consensus should be sought before sending a



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   liaison statement to another organization.

3.2.1.1  Transmitting IETF documents to other organizations

   The simplest case of approving sending of a liaison statement from
   IETF is where the information that is being transmitted consists of
   an IETF document that has some level of agreement within the IETF.
   The process that the document has already gone through to achieve its
   current status assures the necessary level of consensus.  Any
   Standards Track RFC (Draft Standard, Proposed Standard, Internet
   Standard, BCP), and any working group document expected to be placed
   on the standards track, may be transmitted without concern.

   Informational documents may also be exchanged readily when they
   represent a working group position or consensus, such as a
   requirements or architecture document.

   In all cases, the document status must be appropriately noted.  In
   the case of a Working Group Internet Draft, it must be clear that the
   existence of the draft only indicates that the Working Group has
   accepted the work item and, as the standard disclaimer says, the
   actual content can be treated as nothing more than Work in Progress.

   Individually submitted Internet Drafts, Experimental or Historical
   RFCs, and non-working group informational documents should not be
   transmitted without developing further consensus within the relevant
   group, as these documents cannot be truthfully represented as any
   kind of IETF position.

3.2.1.2  Requests for Information

   Another type of liaison statement that can be generated without the
   need for extensive consensus building on the email list is a request
   for information.  The (co)chairs(s) can generate such a liaison
   statement when they recognize from the activities of the group that
   some additional information is helpful, for example, to resolve an
   impasse (i.e., don't waste time arguing over what the real meaning or
   intent of another SDOs document is, just ask the other SDO and base
   further work on the "official" answer).

   Other requests for information may be to request access to certain
   documents of other organizations that are not publicly available.

3.2.1.3  Requesting comments on Work in Progress

   There may be cases where people feel that a document under
   development in the IETF may benefit from the input of experts in
   another relevant SDO, consortium, or forum.  Generally, this is done



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   before the text is "fully cooked" so that input from experts in
   another organization can be included in the final result.  Comments
   would generally be solicited for a standards track working group
   Internet Draft and some level of consensus should be reached on the
   working group or other open mailing list that it is appropriate to
   ask another organization for comments on an IETF draft.

3.2.1.4  Requests for Other Actions (besides comments on IETF drafts)

   There are a number of other kinds of actions that might reasonably be
   requested of another organization:
   o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another
      organization, a request could be made that the other organization
      change something to align with the IETF work.
   o  A request could be made for another organization to start a new
      work item (on behalf of IETF).
   o  A request could be made for another organization to stop a work
      item (presumably because it overlaps or conflicts with other work
      in the IETF).

   These sorts of requests are quite serious.  They can certainly be
   made where appropriate, but these kinds of requests should only be
   made where there is the clearest possible consensus within the
   particular Working Group, Area, or within the IETF at large.

3.2.2  Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements

   Any incoming liaison statement that indicates that it is for
   "Comment" or for "Action" requires a response by the deadline; other
   liaison statements may also be replied to, although a reply is
   generally optional.  It is the responsibility of the (co)chair(s) of
   the addressed organization to make sure that a response is generated
   by the deadline.

3.2.2.1  Responding to Requests for Information

   If another organization requests information that can be found in an
   IETF document of the types indicated in Section 3.2.1.1, this can be
   transmitted by the (co)chair(s) of the addressed group, indicating
   the level of agreement for the relevant document.

3.2.2.2  Responding to Requests for Comments

   If an incoming liaison statement requests comments on a document from
   another organization, a discussion will occur on the mailing list
   where participants can provide their comments.

   If a clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments made to



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   the mailing list, the (co)chair(s) can summarize the conclusions in a
   reply liaison statement back to the originating organization.

   If no clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments on the
   mailing list, or there is no further discussion, a response is still
   due to the originator.  A summary of the email comments - or lack of
   interest in the issue - should be created and sent to the originator,
   and represented as "collected comments" rather than as a consensus of
   the IETF group to which the liaison statement was addressed.  It is
   possible to send this kind of a reply even if some of the comments
   are contradictory.

3.2.2.3  Responding to Request for Action

   A request for Action is a fairly serious thing.  Examples of the
   kinds of actions that may be expected are:
   o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another
      organization, another organization may request that the IETF align
      its work with that of the other organization.
   o  A request could be made for IETF to undertake a new work item.
   o  A request could be made for IETF to stop a work item (presumably
      because it overlaps or conflicts with other work in the
      originating organization).

   Consensus of the receiving group within IETF is clearly necessary to
   be able to fulfill the request.  Fulfilling the request may require a
   great deal of time and multiple steps, for example, if initiating or
   stopping a work item requires a charter change.

   There is, of course, no requirement that IETF perform the action that
   was requested.  But the request should always be taken seriously, and
   a response is required.  The originating organization must always be
   informed of what, if anything, the IETF has decided to do in response
   to the request.  If the IETF decides not to honor the request, or to
   honor it with modifications, the response should include the reasons
   and, if applicable, the alternate course of action.

   For tasks that require a great deal of time, it may be necessary that
   several liaison statements be sent back to the originating
   organization to report the status of the work and the anticipated
   completion time.  The first of these liaison statements must be
   generated by the deadline indicated in the incoming liaison
   statement.

3.2.2.4  Generating Liaison Statements

   IETF participants, usually working group chairs, area directors, or
   other officials, need to be able to send liaison statements to other



Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   SDOs.  The mechanism described in Section 3.1.2, but listing
   appropriate contacts in other SDOs with which the IAB has established
   liaison relationships, provides that capability.

   As a convenience, the liaison statement page described in
   Section 3.1.2 may be used to generate a reply.  If a person (usually
   a working group chair or AD) selects "reply", a new liaison statement
   page is generated from the existing one, reversing the addressing
   information.  IETF documents should be referenced by URL, such as
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>file< or
   ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>file<.

   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].




































Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests to IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: during publication, this section may be removed.














































Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


5.  Security Considerations

   One of the key considerations in developing this process has been the
   possibility of a denial of service attack on the IETF and its
   processes.  Historically, the IETF has not always handled liaison
   statements effectively, resulting in people working in other
   organizations becoming frustrated with it.  Various organizations
   have also used the liaison statement process to attempt to impose
   deadlines on IETF activities, which has been frustrating for all
   concerned - the IETF because it does not accept such, and the other
   organizations because they feel ignored.

   This is the reason that the submission process is automated.  While
   the IETF cannot rate-limit the submitters, it can manage its internal
   pipelines.

   This issue is exacerbated by the lack of any authentication on the
   part of the submitter.  However, the IAB considers it important to be
   able to accept liaison statements whether or not a liaison
   relationship exists, so authentication of submitters is not an
   effective control.






























Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


6.  Acknowledgements

   This text has been prompted by discussions with numerous individuals
   within IETF and other Standards Development Organizations and Fora,
   including Gary Fishman and Bert Wijnen.  It has been developed in
   cooperation with [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt], which is to say with the
   express cooperation of the chair of the IAB, Leslie Daigle.  Personal
   experiences and some "miscues" in coordinating work across ITU-T
   Study Group 15 and the IETF Sub-IP Area have also motivated this
   work.  Some drafts addressing individual problems (e.g.,
   draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt and RFC 3427) make it clear
   that a more general, consistent solution is needed for dealing with
   outside organizations.  Certain ideas have been borrowed from these
   texts.

   Barbara Fuller, Sunny Lee, and Michael Lee developed a prototype and
   commented in detail on the document.  Their inputs directly resulted
   in the appendices describing the implementation road map.

































Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


7.  References

7.1  Normative References

   [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]
              Daigle, L., "IAB Processes for management of liaison
              relationships", Internet-Draft draft-iab-liaison-mgt-03,
              December 2005.

   [RFC3667]  Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
              RFC 3667, February 2005.

7.2  Informative References

   [RFC3356]  Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task
              Force and International Telecommunication Union -
              Telecommunications Standardization Sector Collaboration
              Guidelines", RFC 3356, August 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   Stephen J. Trowbridge
   Lucent Technologies
   1200 West 120th Avenue, Suite 232, Room 34W34
   Westminster, Colorado  80234-2795
   USA

   Phone: +1 303 920 6545
   Fax:   +1 303 920 6553
   Email: sjtrowbridge@lucent.com


   Scott Bradner
   Harvard University
   29 Oxford St.
   Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 495 3864
   Fax:
   Email: sob@harvard.edu









Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   1121 Via Del Rey
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-526-4257
   Fax:   +1-413-473-2403
   Email: fred@cisco.com










































Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


Appendix A.  Implementation Road map

   This section documents the development program as of the time of the
   writing of this document.  It is not normative.

A.1  Phase I: Initial implementation

A.1.1  Displays

   The descriptions of the required displays in Section 3.1.1 and
   Section 3.1.2 call for two sets of displays: one for the public (for
   viewing liaison statements), and one for submitters (for managing
   liaison statements).

   Displays for public view of liaison statements include:
   o  A Liaison Statements Web page that lists all incoming and outgoing
      liaison statements (specific fields TBD).  The title of each
      liaison statement is a link to the details page for that liaison
      statement.
   o  A detail page for each liaison statement that contains:
      *  All of the information specified in the subsections of
         Section 2.2.1.
      *  Links to all attachments that accompanied the liaison statement
         or to documents that are mentioned in the statement but were
         not provided as part of the submission.
      *  Links to all related liaison statements (e.g., replies).

   Displays for submitting and managing liaison statements include:
   o  A summary page that offers mechanisms for:
      *  Creating and submitting a new liaison statement.
      *  Editing a liaison statement that the user has previously
         created and submitted.
      *  Acting on a liaison statement that has been assigned to the
         user.
   o  A template for creating and submitting a liaison statement.  This
      template allows the user to enter the information specified in
      Section 2.2.1.  The user is able to access the template at any
      time (from a list of liaison statements that the user has
      previously created and submitted), and update and resubmit the
      information.
   o  A detail page for managing a liaison statement assigned to the
      user.  This page is similar to the details page available to the
      public.  However, it also includes:
      *  A mechanism for replying to the liaison statement (initial
         implementation)
      *  A link to a liaison statement tracking mechanism (future
         implementation)




Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


A.1.2  Actions on submission

   Submission of a liaison statement results in the following actions:
   o  The information is uploaded to the database.
   o  An e-mail message with the content specified in Section 3.1.1 is
      sent to the addressee with copies to the addresses specified in
      Section 4.1, and to the Secretariat (as specified in
      [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]).
   o  The liaison statement is added to the list on the Liaison
      Statements Web page.
   o  Two detail pages are created for the liaison statement: one for
      the public (to view the liaison statement), and one for the sender
      and the assignee (to manage the liaison statement).

   As specified in Section 3.2.2.4, when a user selects reply on the
   details page of a liaison statement, a template for creating and
   submitting a new liaison statement is generated from the existing one
   that copies "From" to "To" and specifies the respondent as the
   individual the response is coming "From".  Submission of this reply
   liaison statement results in the same set of actions as submission of
   any new liaison statement.  In addition, however, a link to the
   details page of this liaison statement is added to the list of
   related liaison statements on the details pages (both public and
   management) of the original liaison statement (i.e., the one that the
   user replied to).


























Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


Appendix B.  Phase II: Additional instrumentation and responses to usage
            experience

   This section is for information, and is not normative.

   The intended features of the future liaison statement tracking system
   are discussed in Section 3.1.  They include mechanisms for:
   o  Designating an assignee; the assignee is initially is a person
      associated with the body (IAB, IESG, Area, Working Group, etc) to
      which the liaison statement is addressed, but may subsequently be
      changed by an IETF participant.
   o  Indicating the status of the liaison statement (e.g., actions
      required, actions taken, etc.  Specific options TBD).
   o  Sending ticklers to the assignee (with copies to whomever is
      appropriate) when action is required.
   o  Changing the status of the liaison statement, the deadline, or
      other attributes.
   o  Reassigning responsibility.
   o  Closing the liaison statement.
































Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       Handling of Liaison Statements         January 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Trowbridge, et al.        Expires July 21, 2005                [Page 23]