The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship
draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08

Internet Architecture Board                              S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Obsoletes: 4441 (if approved)                                  P. Thaler
Intended status: Informational                                  Broadcom
Expires: November 06, 2013                                  D. Romascanu
                                                                   AVAYA
                                                            May 05, 2013


                    The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
                      draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the standardization collaboration between
   Project 802 of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
   (IEEE) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).  This document
   obsoletes RFC 4441.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 06, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Why Cooperate?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Guidance on Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Organization, Participation and Membership  . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  IEEE 802 Organization, Participation and Membership .   4
       3.1.2.  IETF Organization, Participation and Membership . . .   6
       3.1.3.  Structural Differences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.4.  Cultural Differences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Exchange of Information About Work Items  . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.1.  How IEEE 802 is informed about active IETF work items  10
       3.2.2.  How IETF is informed about active IEEE 802 work items  11
       3.2.3.  Overview of new work proposal notification  . . . . .  11
       3.2.4.  The New-Work mailing list . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.5.  How IEEE 802 is informed about proposed new IETF work
               items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.6.  How IEEE 802 comments on proposed new IETF work items  12
       3.2.7.  How IETF is informed about proposed new IEEE 802 work
               items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.2.8.  How IETF comments on proposed new IEEE 802 work items  13
       3.2.9.  Other Mechanisms for Coordination . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Document Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.3.1.  IEEE 802 Documentation System . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.3.2.  Access to IETF Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.4.  Participation in Document Review and Approval . . . . . .  17
       3.4.1.  IEEE 802 draft review and balloting processes and
               opportunities for IETF participation  . . . . . . . .  17
       3.4.2.  IETF draft review and balloting processes and
               opportunities for IEEE 802 participation  . . . . . .  19
     3.5.  Solicited Review Processes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     3.6.  Liaison Managers and Liaison Statements . . . . . . . . .  20
       3.6.1.  Liaison Managers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       3.6.2.  Liaison Statements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.  Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Cross-Referencing Documents in IEEE 802 and IETF  . . . . . .  22
   6.  Protocol Parameter Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.1.  IANA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.2.  IEEE Registration Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.3.  IEEE 802 Registration at IEEE 802 working group level . .  24
     6.4.  Joint-use registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  Current examples of IEEE 802 and IETF Work Item



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


                Collaboration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.1.  MIB Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.2.  AAA Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix B.  Pointers to Additional Useful Information  . . . . .  29
     B.1.  IEEE 802 Information that may be useful to IETF
           participants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     B.2.  IETF Information that may be of use to IEEE 802
           participants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction and Scope

   This document contains a set of principles and guidelines that serves
   as the basis for establishing collaboration between Project 802 of
   the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802) and
   the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society
   (ISOC), with the objective of securing timely development of
   technical specifications that facilitate maximum interoperability
   with existing (fixed and mobile) Internet systems, devices, and
   protocols.  Each organization will operate according to their own
   rules and procedures including rules governing IPR policy,
   specification elaboration, approval and maintenance.

   This document is non-normative, and is intended to improve practices
   for cooperation between the two organizations that are already in
   place.

   This version of the document responds to comments received during IAB
   Last Call.  The editor believes that all comments received have been
   considered and addressed, with the exception of http://
   wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/ticket/283, which is still being
   discussed, with a goal of providing needed descriptive text for IETF
   processes without providing too much text, which makes the document
   harder to read and might even conflict with normative IETF process
   text.

2.  Why Cooperate?

   Cooperation between independent standards organizations comes at a
   price, so the benefits of cooperation must outweigh the costs.

   The IETF benefits from cooperation by obtaining improved access to
   IEEE 802 expertise on the widely-deployed and widely-used IEEE 802
   Local Area Network architecture [ARCH802].

   IEEE 802 benefits from cooperation by obtaining improved access to
   IETF expertise on IP datagram encapsulation, routing, transport,
   security, and specific applications of interest to IEEE 802.



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   One of the primary drivers for [RFC4441] was to allow effective
   collaboration between IEEE 802 and the IETF during a time where
   downward pressure on travel budgets was making it increasingly
   difficult for the same participants to attend face-to-face meetings
   in both organizations.  That pressure has continued in the
   intervening years.

   Early identification of topics of mutual interest allows the two
   organizations to cooperate in a productive way, and helps each
   organization avoid developing specifications that overlap or conflict
   with specifications developed in the other organization.

3.  Guidance on Collaboration

   This section describes how existing processes within the IETF and
   IEEE 802 may be used to enable collaboration between the
   organizations.

3.1.  Organization, Participation and Membership

   IEEE 802 and IETF are similar in some ways, but different in others.
   When working on projects that are of interest to both organizations,
   it's important to understand these similarities and differences.

3.1.1.  IEEE 802 Organization, Participation and Membership

   The IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) is the standards setting
   body of the IEEE.  The IEEE-SA Standards Board oversees the IEEE
   standards development process.

   The IEEE-SA Standards Board supervises what IEEE calls "sponsors" -
   IEEE entities that develop standards.  The IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards
   Committee is a sponsor that develops and maintains networking
   standards and recommended practices for local, metropolitan, and
   other area networks, using an open and accredited process, and
   advocates them on a global basis.  The most widely used standards are
   for Ethernet, Bridging and Virtual Bridged LANs, Wireless LAN,
   Wireless PAN, Wireless MAN, Wireless Coexistence, Media Independent
   Handover Services, and Wireless RAN.  An individual Working Group
   provides the focus for each area.

   In IEEE 802, work is done in Working Groups operating under an
   Executive Committee.  Each Working Group is led by a Working Group
   Chair.  Most Working Groups have one or more Task Groups.  A Task
   Group is responsible for a project or group of projects.






Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   The Executive Committee is comprised of the Executive Committee
   Chair, Executive Committee Officers (e.g., Vice-Chairs, Secretaries,
   Treasurer) and Working Group Chairs.

   A good place to learn more is the IEEE 802 Home Page, at <http://
   www.ieee802.org/>.  An IEEE 802 Orientation for new participants that
   gives an overview of IEEE 802 process is available from the home
   page.

   The IEEE 802 Executive Committee and all Working Groups meet three
   times per year at plenary sessions.  Plenary sessions are held in
   March, July and November.  Most Working Groups hold interim meetings,
   usually in January, May and September.  The meeting schedule can be
   found at <http://www.IEEE802.org/meeting/index.html>.

   A Study Group is a group formed to consider starting a new project
   and, if new work is found to be suitable, to develop an IEEE Project
   Authorization Request (PAR - similar in purpose to an IETF working
   group charter).  A Study Group may operate under a Working Group or
   under the Executive Committee depending on whether the new work under
   consideration falls within the scope of an existing Working Group.
   Study Groups are expected to exist for a limited time, usually for
   one or two plenary cycles, and must be authorized to continue at each
   plenary if they have not completed their work.

   Participation in IEEE 802 Working Groups is at the level of
   individuals, i.e., participants are human beings and not companies,
   and is open.  Individuals are required to declare their affiliation
   (i.e., any individual or entity that financially or materially
   supports the individual's participation in IEEE 802).

   Working Groups maintain membership rosters, with voting membership
   attained on the basis of in-person meeting attendance.  Retention of
   voting membership generally requires continued attendance and
   responsiveness to letter ballots.  Voting membership allows one to
   vote on motions and on Working Group Ballots of drafts.  All drafts
   are also balloted by a Sponsor ballot pool before approval as
   standards.  Joining a Sponsor ballot pool does not require
   participation in meetings.  One does not need to be a voter to
   comment on drafts and the Working Group is required to consider and
   respond to all comments submitted during Working Group and Sponsor
   ballots.

   To foster ongoing communication between IEEE 802 and IETF, it is
   important to identify and establish contact points within each
   organization.  IEEE 802 contact points may include:





Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   IEEE 802 Working Group Chair:  An IEEE 802 Working Group chair is an
             individual who is assigned to lead the work of IEEE 802 in
             a particular area.  IEEE 802 Working Group chairs are
             elected by the Working Group and confirmed by the Executive
             Committee for a 2 year term.  Collaboration here provides a
             stable contact point for work between the two organizations
             for a given topic.

   IEEE 802 Task Group (or Task Force) Chair:  An IEEE 802 Task Group
             chair is an individual who is assigned to lead the work on
             a specific project or group of projects within a Working
             Group.  Task Group Chairs often serve for the duration of a
             project.  Collaboration here is beneficial to ensure that
             work on a particular project is coordinated.

   IEEE 802 Study Group Chair:  An IEEE 802 Study Group Chair is an
             individual assigned to lead consideration of new work and
             development of an IEEE 802 Project Authorization Request
             (PAR).  Collaboration here provides input on the scope of
             new work and to begin coordination.

   IEEE 802 Liaisons:  It may be beneficial to establish liaisons as
             additional contact points for specific topics of mutual
             interest.  These contact points should be established early
             in the work effort.  The IEEE 802 and IETF projects may
             select the same individual as their contact point, but this
             is not required, so that two individuals each serve as
             contact points for one project participating in the liaison
             relationship.

   Informal Contact points:  Other informal contacts can provide useful
             collaboration points.  These include project editors who
             are responsible for editing the drafts and work with the
             Task Group Chairs to lead tracking and resolution of
             issues.  Joint members who are active in both the IEEE 802
             and IETF projects in an area can also aid in collaboration.

3.1.2.  IETF Organization, Participation and Membership

   The IETF Standards Process is defined in [BCP9].  The IETF working
   group process is defined in [BCP25].

   [BCP11] is a helpful description of organizations involved in the
   IETF standards process.  It can still be useful as an overview,
   although details have changed since 1996.






Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   In the IETF, work is done in working groups (WGs), and is mostly
   carried out through open, public mailing lists rather than face-to-
   face meetings.

   WGs are organized into areas, and each area is managed by one or more
   area directors.  Collectively, the area directors comprise the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) [RFC3710].

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) charter [RFC2850] assigns the
   IAB several responsibilities relevant to this document:

   1.  IESG Appointment

   2.  Architectural Oversight

   3.  Standards Process Oversight and Appeal

   4.  Appointment of RFC Series and Internet Assigned Number Authority
       (IANA) roles

   5.  Oversight of External Liaisons for the IETF

   IESG and IAB members are selected using the Nomcom process defined in
   [BCP10].  Working group chairs serve at the pleasure of their Area
   Directors, as described in [BCP25].

   IETF meets in plenary session three times per year.  Some working
   groups schedule additional interim meetings, which may be either
   face-to-face or "virtual", but this is not true for most IETF working
   groups.  The preferred way to develop specifications is to do work on
   mailing lists, reserving face-to-face sessions for topics that have
   not been resolved through previous mailing list discussion.

   Information about IETF plenary meetings is available at <http://
   www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html>.  Information about IETF working
   group interim meetings is available on the IETF-Announce mailing list
   (see <http://www.ietf.org/list/announcement.html> for archives and
   subscription information).

   Participation in the IETF is open to anyone (technically, anyone with
   access to e-mail sufficient to allow subscription to one or more IETF
   mailing lists).  All IETF participants act as individuals.  There is
   no concept of "IETF membership".








Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   To foster ongoing communication between IEEE 802 and IETF, it is
   important to identify and establish contact points within each
   organization.  IETF contact points may include Area Directors,
   Working Group Chairs, and other points of contact who can help
   communicate between IEEE 802 and IETF working groups.

   The IETF is designed to be a "bottom-up" protocol engineering
   organization - the leadership steers and manages, but does not direct
   work in a top-down way.  Technical agreements with "the IETF" are
   based on the consensus of working group participants, rather than
   negotiated with IETF leadership.

   A good place to learn more is the IETF Home Page, at <http://
   www.ietf.org/>, and especially the "About the IETF" page at <http://
   www.ietf.org/about>, selectable from the IETF Home Page.

   The "Tao of the IETF" is also very helpful, especially for IEEE 802
   participants who will also be participating in IETF working groups
   and attending IETF meetings.  It's available from <http://
   www.ietf.org/tao.html.

   The current list of IETF area directors and working group chairs can
   be found in the IETF working group charters, at <http://
   datatracker.ietf.org/wg/>.

3.1.3.  Structural Differences

   IEEE 802 and IETF have similar structures, but the names they use are
   different, and even conflicting.  For example, both IEEE 802 and IETF
   use the term "Working group", but "working groups" means two very
   different things in the two organizations.

   Thmbnail comparison between IETF and IEEE 802 entities

   IETF Area           is similar to  IEEE 802 Working Group
   IETF Working Group  is similar to  IEEE 802 Task Group
   IETF BOF            is similar to  IEEE 802 Study Group


   Both IEEE 802 Working Groups and IETF Areas are large, long-lived,
   and relatively broadly scoped, containing more narrowly chartered
   entities (IEEE 802 Task Groups and IETF Working Groups), which tend
   to be short-lived and narrowly chartered.  IEEE 802 uses Study Groups
   to develop proposals for new work, and these are analogous to IETF
   BOFs.

3.1.4.  Cultural Differences




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   It's worth noting that IEEE 802 and IETF have cultures that are
   similar, but not identical.  Some of the differences include:

   Consensus and Rough Consensus:  Both organizations make decisions
             based on consensus, but in the IETF, "consensus" can mean
             "rough consensus".  In practice, this means that a large
             part of the community being asked needs to agree.  Not
             everyone has to agree, but if someone disagrees, they need
             to convince other people of their point of view.  If
             they're not able to do that, they'll be "in the rough" when
             "rough consensus" is declared.  IEEE 802 consensus is
             usually based on percentage of voting approval.

   Rough Consensus and Running Code:  David Clark coined the phrase "we
             believe in rough consensus and running code" in 1992, to
             explain IETF culture.  Although that's not always true
             today, the existence of "running code" as a proof of
             feasibility for a proposal often carries weight during
             technical discussions.  IEEE 802 standards may be less
             amenable to one-off implementation while the standard is
             still being developed, whether as hardware or as software.

   Voting:   Both organizations use voting as a decision-making tool,
             but IEEE 802 uses voting within working groups, while IETF
             working groups do not use voting.  Working group chairs may
             ask for a "show of hands" or "take a hum" to judge backing
             for a proposal, but this is not considered to be "voting" -
             The IESG does ballot documents when considering them for
             publication.  This balloting is a final approval for
             publication.

   Balance between mailing lists and meetings:  Both organizations make
             use of mailing lists.  IETF working groups rely heavily on
             mailing lists, where work is done, in addition at formal
             meetings.  The IETF requires all working group decisions to
             be made (or, often in practice, confirmed) on mailing lists
             - final decisions aren't made in meetings.  IEEE 802
             working groups typically meet face-to-face about twice as
             often as IETF working groups (three IEEE 802 plenaries plus
             three IETF 802 interim meetings each year, compared to
             three IETF plenaries per year) and teleconferences are more
             common in IEEE 802 than in most IETF working groups.  Most
             major decisions in IEEE 802 are made during plenary or
             interim meetings, except for procedural decisions.
             Attendance at meetings is critical to influencing decisions
             and to maintaining membership voting rights.





Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   Interim meetings:  Both organizations use interim meetings (between
             plenary meetings).  IETF working groups schedule interim
             meetings on an as-needed basis.  IETF interim meetings may
             be face-to-face or virtual.  Most IEEE 802 WGs hold
             regularly interim meetings three times a year in the middle
             of the interval between two Plenary meetings.  The
             schedules and location of these meetings are typically
             known many months in advance.  IEEE 802 interim meetings
             are face-to-face only.  In addition to regularly scheduled
             IEEE 802 interim meetings, teleconference and ad hoc
             meetings are held on an as-needed basis.

   Remote participation:  Because the IETF doesn't make decisions at
             face-to-face meetings, it's not absolutely necessary to
             attend face-to-face meetings at all.  Some significant
             contributors don't attend most face-to-face IETF meetings,
             although in order to find collaborators on a proposal for
             new work, or solicit backing for your ideas, that's likely
             easier in a face-to-face conversation, often in a hallway
             and sometimes in a bar.  IEEE 802 significant contributors
             almost always attend face-to-face meetings.  Participation
             in IEEE 802 meetings is a condition for WG membership.

   Working group autonomy:  Both IEEE 802 and IETF allow working groups
             considerable autonomy (within the documented process) in
             getting chartered work done.

   EDITOR NOTE: the description of "rough consensus", including hums,
   may be affected by http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-
   consensus/ if that draft advances.

3.2.  Exchange of Information About Work Items

   The following sections outline a process that can be used to enable
   each organization to stay informed about the other's active and
   proposed work items.

3.2.1.  How IEEE 802 is informed about active IETF work items

   The responsibility is on individual IEEE 802 working groups to review
   the current IETF working groups to determine if there are any topics
   of mutual interest.  Working group charters and active Internet-
   Drafts can be found on the IETF web site (<http://
   datatracker.ietf.org/wg/>).  If an IEEE 802 working group identifies
   a common area of work, the IEEE 802 working group leadership should
   contact both the IETF working group chair and the area director(s)
   responsible.  This may be accompanied by a formal liaison statement
   (see Section 3.6.2).



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


3.2.2.  How IETF is informed about active IEEE 802 work items

   IEEE 802 Working Group status reports are published at the beginning
   and end of each plenary at <http://IEEE802.org/minutes> on the IEEE
   802 website.  Each Working Group includes a list of their active
   projects and the status.

   The charter of an IEEE 802 project is defined in an approved Project
   Authorization Request (PAR).  PARs are accessible in IEEE Standards
   myProject, at <https://development.standards.ieee.org/my-site>.
   Access requires an IEEE web account which is free and has no
   membership requirement.

   In myProject, a search on "View Active PARs" for 802 will bring up a
   list of all active IEEE 802 PARs.

   The responsibility is on individual IETF working groups to
   periodically review the information on the IEEE 802 web site to
   determine if there is work in progress of mutual interest.

   If an IETF working group identifies a common area of work or a need
   for coordination, the working group leadership should contact the
   IEEE 802 Working Group chair and Task Group chair.  This may be
   accompanied by a formal liaison statement (see Section 3.6.2).

3.2.3.  Overview of new work proposal notification

   These principles describe the notification process used by both
   organizations:

   1.  For both organizations, the technical group making a proposal for
       new work that may conflict with, overlap with, or be dependent on
       the other organization is responsible for informing the top-level
       coordination body in the other organizaion that coordination may
       be required.

   2.  For both organizations, the top-level coordination body receiving
       that notification is responsible for determining whether
       coordination is, in fact, required, and informing the specific
       groups within the organization who may be affected by the
       proposal for new work.










Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   These direct notifications will be the most common way that each
   organization is informed about proposals for new work in the other
   organization.  Several other ways of identifying proposed new work
   are described in the following sections.  These additional ways act
   as "belt and suspenders" to reduce the chances that proposals for new
   work in one organization escapes notice in the other organization
   when coordination will be required.

3.2.4.  The New-Work mailing list

   Several standards development organizations(including IETF and IEEE
   802) have agreed to use a mailing list for the distribution of
   information about proposals for new work items among these SDOs.

   Rather than having individual IEEE 802 participants subscribe
   directly to New-Work, a single IEEE 802 mailing list is subscribed.
   Leadership of the IEEE 802 working groups may subscribe to this
   "second-level" IEEE 802 mailing list, which is maintained by the
   Executive Committee (EC).

   This mailing list is limited to representatives of SDOs proposing new
   work that may require coordination with the IETF.  Subscription
   requests may be sent to the IAB Executive Director.

   EDITOR NOTE: the IAB has a 2013 retreat agenda item to discuss the
   logistics for the New-Work mailing list.  We may be adding
   information about how to subscribe to that mailing list after the
   retreat.

3.2.5.  How IEEE 802 is informed about proposed new IETF work items

   Many proposals for new IETF work items can be identified in proposed
   Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) sessions, as well as draft charters for
   working groups.  The IETF forwards all such draft charters for new
   and revised working groups and BOF session announcements to the IETF
   New-Work mailing list.

3.2.6.  How IEEE 802 comments on proposed new IETF work items

   Each IEEE 802 working group chair, or designated representative, may
   provide comments on these charters by responding to the IESG mailing
   list at iesg@ietf.org clearly indicating their IEEE 802 position and
   the nature of their concern.

   It should be noted that the IETF turnaround time for new working
   group charters can be as short as two weeks, although the call for
   comment period on work items that may require coordination with IEEE
   802 can be extended to allow more time for discussion within IEEE



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   802.  This places a burden on both organizations to proactively
   communicate and avoid "late surprises" to either organization.

   Although an IEEE 802 working group may not be able to develop a
   formal consensus response unless the notification arrives during that
   working group's meeting, the IEEE 802 working group chair can
   informally let the IETF know that IEEE 802 may have concerns about a
   proposed work item.  The IETF will consider any informal comments
   received without waiting for a formal liaison statement.

3.2.7.  How IETF is informed about proposed new IEEE 802 work items

   An IEEE 802 project is initiated by approval of a Project
   Authorization Request (PAR) which includes a description of the scope
   of the work.  Any IEEE 802 PARs which introduce new functionality are
   required to be available for review no less than 30 days prior to the
   Monday of the IEEE 802 plenary session where they will be considered.

   IEEE 802 considers Five Criteria when deciding whether to approve new
   work: Broad Market Potential, Compatibility, Distinct Identity,
   Technical Feasibility and Economic Feasibility.  The criteria are
   defined in the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
   Manual.  The PARs are accompanied by responses on the 5 Criteria.

   IEEE 802 posts proposed PARs to the New-Work mailing list, prior to
   the IEEE 802 meetings where the PARs will be discussed.  The IETF
   coordination body will notify technical groups about PARs of
   interest.

3.2.8.  How IETF comments on proposed new IEEE 802 work items

   Any comments on proposed PARs should be submitted to the Working
   Group chair and copied to the Executive Committee chair by e-mail not
   later than 5:00 PM Tuesday of the plenary session (in the time zone
   where the plenary is located).

3.2.9.  Other Mechanisms for Coordination

   From time to time, IEEE 802 and IETF may agree to use additional
   mechanisms for coordination between the two groups.

   As examples of such mechanisms, at the time this document was
   written, the two organizations are holding periodic conference calls
   between representatives of the IETF and IEEE 802 leadership teams,
   and are maintaining a "living list" of shared interests between the
   two organizations, along with the status of these interests and any
   related action items.  At the time this document was written, the
   "living list" included about 20 topics being actively discussed, with



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   more expected.  These conference calls help the two organizations
   coordinate more effectively by allowing higher-bandwidth discussions
   than formal liaison statements would allow, and permitting more
   timely interactions than waiting for face-to-face meetings.

   Minutes for these conference calls, and the "living lists" discussed
   on each call, are available at <http://www.iab.org/activities/joint-
   activities/iab-ieee-coordination/>.

   EDITOR NOTE: this document doesn't mention the ieee-ietf-coord
   mailing list.  Is using that list a long-term commitment from both
   organizations?  If so, we should probably include it; if not, we
   should leave it out.

3.3.  Document Access

   During the course of IEEE 802 and IETF collaboration, it is important
   to share internal documents among the technical working groups.  In
   addition, drafts of IEEE 802 standards, Internet Drafts, and RFCs may
   also be distributed.

3.3.1.  IEEE 802 Documentation System

   Each IEEE 802 standardization project is assigned to a Working Group
   (WG) for development.  In IEEE 802, the working methods of the WGs
   vary in detail.  The documentation system is one area in which WG
   operations differ, based on varying needs and traditions.  In some
   cases, the WGs assign the core development to a subgroup (typically
   known as a Task Group or Task Force), and the documentation
   procedures may vary among the subgroups as well.  Prior to project
   authorization, or on topics not directly related to development of a
   standard, the WG may consider and develop documents itself, or using
   other subgroups (standing committees, ad hocs, etc.).

   IEEE 802 also supports Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) that conduct
   business and develop documents, although not standards.  References
   here to WGs apply to TAGs as well.

   In addition to allowing IETF participants to access documentation
   resources within IEEE 802, IEEE 802 can also make selected IEEE 802
   documents at any stage of development available to the IETF by
   attaching them to a formal liaison statement.  Although a
   communication can point to a URL where a non-ASCII document can be
   downloaded, attachments in proprietary formats to an IETF mailing
   list are discouraged.

3.3.1.1.  The role of the IEEE 802 Documentation System in document
          development



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   In general, development of standards in IEEE 802 is contribution-
   driven.  Content for drafts of standards is submitted to WGs by
   individual participants, or groups of participants.  Content toward
   other group documents (such as, for example, external communication
   statements or foundation documents underlying a draft of a standard)
   might also be contribution-driven.  At some point, the group
   assembles contributed material to develop group documents, and
   revision takes place within group meetings or by assignment to
   editors.  For the most part, the contributions toward discussion as
   well as the group documents (including minutes and other reports) are
   openly available to the public.

3.3.1.2.  Access to internal IEEE 802 Working Group Documents

   Generally, the archives of minutes and contributions to IEEE 802
   groups are publically and freely available.

   Many IEEE 802 groups use a documentation system provided by IEEE and
   known as "Mentor".  The list of these groups is available at the IEEE
   802 Mentor Home Page: <https://mentor.ieee.org/802>.  Mentor provides
   the following features:

   1.  The documentation system is structured and ordered, with
       documentation tags and unique numbering and revisioning.

   2.  On-line documentation is available.

   3.  Limited search functionality is provided, and publicly-available
       search engines index the data.

   4.  The ability to submit documents to Mentor is limited but is
       generally available to any interested party.  An IEEE web account
       is required but can be easily and freely established using the
       IEEE Account Request page, at <http://www.ieee.org/go/
       create_web_account>.  If submission is protected, the privilege
       can be requested via the Mentor system (using the "Join group"
       link on each WG Mentor page) and would typically be granted by
       the WG documentation manager in a manual approval.

   5.  Submitted documents are immediately available to the general
       public at the same instant they become available for
       consideration by the group.

   IEEE 802.1 and IEEE 802.3 do not use Mentor.

   IEEE 802.1 documents are organized in folders by year at: <http://
   www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/>.  The file names indicate the
   relevant project, author, date and version.  The file naming



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   conventions and upload link are at: <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/
   public/>.  Upload is moderated.

   IEEE 802.3 documents are accessed from the home pages of the IEEE
   802.3 subgroups (i.e., Task Force or Study Group) and are organized
   in folders by meeting date.  Files are uploaded by emailing to the
   subgroup chair.

3.3.1.3.  Submission of Contributions to IEEE 802 Working Groups

   IEEE 802 Working Groups are open to contributions.  In many cases, a
   WG or subgroup will issue a call for contributions with a specific
   technical solicitation, including deadlines and submission
   instructions.  Some groups maintain specific submission procedures
   and specify a contribution cover sheet to clarify the status of the
   contribution.

3.3.1.4.  Access to IEEE 802 Working Group Drafts

   The IEEE owns the copyright to drafts of standards developed within
   IEEE 802 standardization projects.  The IEEE-SA grants permission for
   an IEEE 802 draft to be distributed without charge to the
   participants for that IEEE 802 standards development project.
   Typically, such distribution is on the Internet under password
   protection, with the password provided to members of the
   participating WG.  Requests to the relevant WG chair for access to a
   draft for purposes of participation in the project are typically
   granted.

   An alternative access mechanism which may more easily enable document
   access for IETF WGs collaborating with IEEE 802 was established by a
   liaison statement sent to the IETF in July 2004 by Paul Nikolich,
   Chair of IEEE 802 (available at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
   documents/LIAISON/file41.pdf>), describing the process by which IETF
   WGs can obtain access to IEEE 802 work-in-progress.  IEEE 802 WG
   Chairs have the authority to grant membership in their WGs, and can
   use this authority to grant membership to an IETF WG chair upon
   request.  The IETF WG chair will be provided with access to the
   username/password for the IEEE 802 WG archives, and is permitted to
   share that information with participants in the IETF WG.  Since it is
   possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
   joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information
   to anyone who requests it.  However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress
   is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting
   the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted.

3.3.1.5.  Access to IEEE 802 Standards




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   IEEE 802 standards, once approved, are published and made available
   for sale.  They can be purchased from the IEEE Standards Store, at
   <http://www.techstreet.com/IEEEgate.html>.  They are also available
   from other outlets, including the IEEE Xplore digital library, at
   <http://IEEExplore.IEEE.org>.

   The Get IEEE 802 program, at <http://standards.ieee.org/about/get>,
   grants public access to download individual IEEE 802 standards at no
   charge.  IEEE 802 standards are added to the Get IEEE 802 program six
   months after publication.

3.3.2.  Access to IETF Documents

   IETF Internet-Drafts may be located using IETF "Datatracker"
   interface at <https://datatracker.ietf.org>, or via the IETF tools
   site at <http://tools.ietf.org>.  RFCs may be located at either of
   the above, or via the RFC Editor site at <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

   It should be recognized that the official/athoritative versions of
   all IETF documents are in ASCII.

3.4.  Participation in Document Review and Approval

   During the course of IEEE 802 and IETF collaboration, it is important
   for technical experts to review documents of mutual interest and,
   when appropriate, to provide review comments to the approving body as
   the document moves through the approval process.

3.4.1.  IEEE 802 draft review and balloting processes and opportunities
        for IETF participation

   IEEE 802 drafts are reviewed and balloted at multiple stages in the
   draft.  Any ballot comments received from non-voters before the close
   of the ballot are required to be considered in the comment resolution
   process.  The Editors, Task Group Chairs or Working Group Chairs
   responsible for the project will facilitate the entering of comments
   from non-voters.

   IEEE 802 draft reviews and ballots sometimes produce a large volume
   of comments.  In order to handle them efficiently, spreadsheets or a
   comment database tool are used.  It is highly recommended that
   balloters and others submitting comments do so with a file that can
   be imported into these tools.  A file with the correct format is
   normally referenced in the ballot announcement or can be obtained
   from the Editor, Task Group Chair or Working Group Chair responsible
   for the project.  Comments on a draft should be copied to the Editor,
   Task Group Chair and Working Group Chair.




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


3.4.1.1.  Task Group Review

   During draft development, informal task group reviews (task group
   ballots) are conducted.  Though these are called "ballots" by some
   Working Groups, the focus is on collecting and resolving comments on
   the draft rather than on trying to achieve a specific voting result.

3.4.1.2.  Working Group ballot

   Once the draft is substantially complete, Working Group ballots are
   conducted.  Working Group voting members are entitled and required to
   vote in Working Group ballots.  Any disapprove votes are required to
   be accompanied by comments that indicate what the objection is and a
   proposed resolution.  Approve votes may also be accompanied by
   comments.  The comments submitted with a disapprove vote may be
   marked to indicate which comments need to "be satisfied" to change
   the vote.

   Initial Working Group ballots are at least 30 days.  Recirculation
   ballots to review draft changes and comment resolutions are at least
   10 days.

   In order to submit a Working Group ballot, contact the WG chair for
   the submission tool currently in use, as the tools may change over
   time.

3.4.1.3.  Sponsor ballot

   When a draft has successfully completed Working Group ballot, it
   proceeds to Sponsor ballot.  One may participate in IEEE 802 Sponsor
   ballots with an individual membership in the IEEE Standards
   Association (IEEE-SA) or by paying a per-ballot fee.  Participants
   are also required to state their affiliation and the category of
   their relationship to the scope of the standards activity (e.g.,
   producer, user, general interest).

   Information about IEEE-SA membership can be found at <http://
   standards.ieee.org/membership/>.

   Sponsor ballot is a public review.  An invitation is sent to any
   parties known to be interested in the subject matter of the ballot.
   One can indicate interest in IEEE myProject (<https://
   development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/bp/StartPage>).  An IEEE web
   account is freely available, and is required for login.  To select
   interest areas, go to the Projects tab and select Manage Activity
   Profile and check any areas of interest.  IEEE 802 projects are under
   Computer Society; LAN/MAN Standards Committee.




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   The Sponsor ballot pool is formed from those that accept the
   invitation during the invitation period.

   As with other ballot levels, the IETF participants who want to
   comment on Sponsor ballots need not be members in the Sponsor ballot
   pool.  The Editors, Task Group Chairs or Working Group Chairs
   responsible for the project will facilitate the entering of comments
   from IETF participants who are not members in the Sponsor ballot
   pool.

   Any "disapprove" votes are required to be accompanied by comments
   that indicate what the objection is, along with a proposed
   resolution.  Approve votes may also be accompanied by comments.  The
   comments submitted with a disapprove vote may be marked to indicate
   which comments need to "be satisfied" for the commenter to change the
   vote from "disapprove".

   Initial Sponsor ballot are open for at least 30 days.  Recirculation
   ballots to review draft changes and proposed comment resolutions are
   at least 10 days.

3.4.2.  IETF draft review and balloting processes and opportunities for
        IEEE 802 participation

   The IETF Working Group Process is defined in [BCP25].  The overall
   IETF standards process is defined in [BCP9].

   As noted in Section 3.1.4, IETF working groups do not "ballot" to
   determine working group consensus to forward documents to the IESG
   for approval, but the IESG does, as they consider documents for
   approval.

   Technical contributions are welcome at any point in the IETF document
   review and approval process, but there are some points where
   contribution is more likely to be effective.

   1.  When a working group is considering adoption of an individual
       draft.  Adoption is often signaled on the working group's mailing
       list.

   2.  When a working group issues a "Working Group Last Call" ("WGLC")
       for a draft.  Although this is not a mandatory step in the
       document review and approval process for Internet-Drafts, most
       IETF working groups do issue WGLCs for most working group
       documents.  WGLC would be signaled on the working group's mailing
       list.





Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   3.  When the Internet Engineering Steering Group issues an "IETF Last
       Call" ("Last Call") for a draft.  This is similar in spirit to
       WGLC, but is a request for review and approval that is addressed
       to the larger IETF community.  IETF Last Call is signaled on the
       IETF-Announce Mailing List, and comments and feedback are
       ordinarily directed to the IETF Discussion Mailing List.

   In practice, earlier input is more likely to be effective input.
   IEEE 802 participants who are interested in work within the IETF
   should be monitoring that work and providing input long before
   Working Group Last Calls and IETF Last Calls, for best results.

   Some IETF working group charters direct the working group to
   communicate with relevant IEEE 802 task groups.

3.5.  Solicited Review Processes

   With the number of areas of cooperation between IEEE 802 and IETF
   increasing, the document review process has extended beyond the
   traditional subjects of SMI MIB modules and AAA (authentication,
   authorization and accounting) described in [RFC4441].  IESG members
   routinely solicit directorate reviews as a means to solicit the
   opinion of specialized experts on specific aspects of documents in
   IESG review (examples include security, MIB doctors, or congestion
   management reviews).  Area Directors may also require solicited
   reviews from IEEE 802 or IEEE 802 Working Groups when it becomes
   clear that the Internet-Draft has implications that impact some area
   of IEEE 802's responsibility and expertise.

   IEEE 802 leadership can also solicit similar reviews, but these
   reviews are not included as part of the formal IEEE 802 process.

3.6.  Liaison Managers and Liaison Statements

   Both IEEE 802 and IETF work best when people participate directly in
   work of mutual interest, but that's not always possible, and
   individuals speaking as individuals may not provide effective
   communication between the two SDOs.  From time to time, it may be
   appropriate for a technical body in one SDO to communicate as a body
   with a technical body in the other SDO.  This section describes the
   mechanisms used to provide formal communication between the two
   organizations, should that become necessary.

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is responsible for liaison
   relationship oversight for the IETF.  In IEEE 802, liaison
   relationship oversight is distributed, and each organization
   appointing liaison managers is responsible for oversight of its own
   liaison relationships.



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   The reader should note that the role of a liaison manager in both
   IEEE 802 and IETF is not to "speak for" the appointing organization.
   A liaison manager is most helpful in ensuring that neither
   organization is surprised by what's happening in the other
   organization, helping to identify the right people to be talking to
   in each organization, and making sure that formal liaison statements
   don't "get lost" between the two organizations.  The IAB's guidance
   to liaison managers is available in [RFC4691].  IEEE 802
   organizations appointing each liaison manager also provide guidance
   to those liaison managers.  There is no global guidance for all IEEE
   802 liaison managers.

3.6.1.  Liaison Managers

   The IAB appoints IETF Liaison Managers using the process described in
   [BCP102].  The current list of the IETF's liaison relationships, and
   the liaison managers responsible for each of these relationships is
   available at <http://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html>.

   IEEE liaison managers are selected by the organizations they
   represent, either in an election or by working group or task group
   chair appointment.  The current list of IEEE 802's liaison
   relationships and the liaison managers responsible for each of these
   relationships is available at <http://www.ieee802.org/
   liaisons.shtml>.

3.6.2.  Liaison Statements

   The IEEE 802 procedure for sending and receiving liaison statements
   is defined by the Procedure for Coordination with Other Standards
   Bodies in the IEEE 802 LMSC Operations Manual (<http://ieee802.org/
   devdocs.shtml>).

   The IETF process for sending and receiving liaison statements is
   defined in [BCP103].

4.  Mailing Lists

   All IETF working groups and all IEEE 802 Working Groups have
   associated mailing lists.  Most IEEE 802 Task Groups also have
   mailing lists, but in some cases, e.g., the IEEE 802.1 Working Group,
   the Working Group mailing list is used for any Task Group matters.









Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   In the IETF, the mailing list is the primary vehicle for discussion
   and decision-making.  It is recommended that IEEE 802 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 page.

   In IEEE 802, mailing lists are typically used for meeting logistics,
   ballot announcements, reports and some technical discussion.  Most
   decision making is at meetings, but in cases where a decision is
   needed between meetings, it may be done over the mailing list.  Most
   technical discussion occurs at meetings and by generating comments on
   drafts which are compiled with responses in comment resolution
   documents.

   Most IEEE 802 mailing lists are open to all subscribers.  For the few
   IEEE 802 mailing lists that are not open, please see the working
   group chair to arrange for access to the mailing list.

5.  Cross-Referencing Documents in IEEE 802 and IETF

   IETF and IEEE 802 each recognize the standards defined by the other
   organization.  Standards produced by each organization can be used as
   references in standards produced by the other organization.

   IETF specifications may reference IEEE 802 work in progress, but
   these references would be labeled as "Work in Progress", and if the
   references are normative, this would block publication of the
   referring specification until the reference is available in a stable
   form.

   IEEE 802 standards may normatively reference non-expired Internet-
   Drafts, but IEEE 802 prefers that this should be avoided if at all
   possible.

   Informative references in IEEE 802 Standards are placed in a
   bibliography, so may point to either approved IETF standards or IETF
   Internet-Drafts, if necessary.

   When an IEEE 802 Standard is revised, it normally retains the same
   number and the date is updated.  Therefore, IEEE 802 Standards are
   dated with the year of approval, e.g IEEE 802 Std 802.1Q-2011.  There
   are two ways of referencing IEEE 802 Standards: undated and dated
   references.  IEEE 802 practice allows undated reference to be used
   when referencing a whole standard.  An undated reference indicates
   that the most recent version of the standard should be used.  A dated
   reference refers to a specific revision of an IEEE 802 standard.
   Since clauses, subclauses, tables, figures, etc.  may be renumbered



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   when a standard is revised, a dated reference should be used when
   citing specific items in a standard.

   IETF standards may be cited by RFC number, which would also be a
   dated reference.  If an undated reference to an IETF Internet
   Standard is desired, a number is also assigned in the "STD" series
   [BCP9], and these references refer to the most recent version of an
   IETF Internet Standard.

6.  Protocol Parameter Allocation

   Both IEEE 802 and IETF maintain registries of assigned protocol
   parameters, and some protocol parameters assigned in one organization
   are of interest to the other organization.  This section describes
   the way each organization registers protocol parameters.

6.1.  IANA

   The IETF uses the Internet Assigned Numbering Authority (IANA) as a
   central authority that administers registries for most protocol
   parameter allocations.  The overarching document describing this is
   [RFC5226].  [RFC5342] discusses use of IEEE 802-specific IANA
   parameters in IETF protocols and specifies IANA considerations for
   allocation of code points under the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique
   Identifier).

   Requests for protocol parameter allocations from IANA are subject to
   assignment policies, and these policies vary from registry to
   registry.  A variety of well-known policies are described in
   [RFC5226], but registries are not limited to one of the well-known
   choices.

   The purpose of these allocations is to manage a namespace
   appropriately, so unless a registry has a policy that allows
   something like first come, first served ("FCFS") for a namespace that
   is effectively unbounded, requests for protocol parameter allocation
   will require some level of review.  "Standards Action" is at the
   other extreme (an approved standards-track RFC is required in order
   to obtain an allocation).  Some registries require that a request for
   allocation pass "expert review" - review by someone knowlegeable in
   the technology domain, appointed by the IESG and given specific
   criteria to use when reviewing requests.









Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


6.2.  IEEE Registration Authority

   The IEEE Standards Association uses the IEEE Registration Authority
   as a central authority administering registries.  The IEEE
   Registration Authority Committee (IEEE RAC) provides technical
   oversight for the IEEE Registration Authority.

   The list of Registries administered by the IEEE Registration
   Authority can be found on the IEEE RAC website, at <http://
   standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/general.html>.

   Ethertype Allocation - Some IETF protocol specifications make use of
   Ethertypes.  Ethertypes are fairly scare resource so allocation has
   the following requirements.  All Ethertype requests are subject to
   review by a consultant to the IEEE RA followed by IEEE RAC
   confirmation.

   The IEEE RAC will not assign a new Ethertype to a new IETF protocol
   specification until the IESG has approved the protocol specification
   for publication as an RFC.  In exceptional cases, the IEEE RA will
   consider "early allocation" of an Ethertype for an IETF protocol that
   is still under development when the request comes from, and has been
   vetted by, the IESG.

   Note that "playpen" Ethertypes have been assigned in IEEE 802
   [Etypes] for use during protocol development and experimentation.

   While a fee is normally charged by the IEEE Registration Authority
   Committee (RAC) for the allocation of an Ethertype, the IEEE RAC will
   consider waiving the fee for allocations relating to an IETF
   standards track document, based on a request from the IESG.

6.3.  IEEE 802 Registration at IEEE 802 working group level

   Each IEEE 802 working group has a registry of identifier values and a
   mechanism to allocate identifier values in its standards and approved
   amendments.  This includes items such as Object Identifiers for
   managed objects and assignment for protocols defined by that Working
   Group, such as OpCodes.  Contact the IEEE 802 working group chair for
   the details of a given working group registry.

6.4.  Joint-use registries

   Because some registries are "joint-use" between IEEE 802 and IETF, it
   is necessary for each organization to review usage of registries
   maintained by the other organization as part of the review and
   approval process for standards.




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   If an IEEE 802 document refers to IANA registries, those references
   should be checked prior to Sponsor balloting.  If an IETF document
   refers to IEEE 802 registries, those references should be checked as
   part of IANA Review during IETF Last Call.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no actions by IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document describes cooperation procedures and has no direct
   Internet security implications.

9.  Acknowledgements

   This document borrows a significant amount of text, and much of its
   structure, from [RFC6756].  Additional text was borrowed from
   [RFC4441].  We are grateful to the authors and editors of both these
   predecessor documents.

   This document was assembled by a drafting team of participants from
   both IEEE 802 and IETF.  The drafting team members were Dan
   Romascanu, Dorothy Stanley, Eric Gray, Patricia Thaler, Roger Marks,
   Ross Callon, Spencer Dawkins, and Subir Das.

   We also thank Adrian Farrel, Bernard Aboba, Dave Thaler, Jari Arkko
   and Jouni Korhonen for providing review comments.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4691]  Andersson, L., "Guidelines for Acting as an IETF Liaison
              to Another Organization", RFC 4691, October 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5342]  Eastlake, D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage
              for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, September
              2008.








Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   [RFC6756]  Trowbridge, S., Lear, E., Fishman, G., and S. Bradner,
              "Internet Engineering Task Force and International
              Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
              Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines", RFC
              6756, September 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ARCH802]  IEEE 802, "IEEE 802-200(R2007) IEEE Standard for Local and
              Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture",
              2007.

   [BCP102]   Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              102: IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison
              Relationships", 2005.

   [BCP103]   Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              103: Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and
              from the IETF", 2005.

   [BCP10]    Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              10: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
              Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
              Committees, as updated", 2004.

   [BCP11]    Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              11: The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards
              Process, as updated", 1996.

   [BCP158]   Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              158: RADIUS Design Guidelines", 2011.

   [BCP25]    Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice
              25: IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", 1998.

   [BCP9]     Internet Engineering Task Force, "Best Current Practice 9:
              The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3, as updated",
              1996.

   [DADG]     Internet Engineering Task Force, "Diameter Applications
              Design Guidelines (draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-16)
              (Work in progress)", 2012.

   [Etypes]   IEEE 802, "IEEE 802 Std 802a-2003 (Amendment to IEEE 802
              Std 802-2001).  IEEE 802 standard for Local and
              Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture --
              Amendment 1: Ethertypes for Prototype and Vendor- Specific
              Protocol Development", 2003.



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   [IEEE80211F]
              IEEE 802, "802.11F-2003 - IEEE Trial-Use Recommended
              Practice for Multi-Vendor Access Point Interoperability
              Via an Inter-Access Point Protocol Across Distribution
              Systems Supporting IEEE 802.11 Operation", 2003.

   [RADEXT]   Internet Engineering Task Force, "Remote Authentication
              Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions (draft-
              ietf-radext-radius-extensions-13) (Work in progress)",
              2013.

   [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of
              the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
              May 2000.

   [RFC3575]  Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
              Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July
              2003.

   [RFC3710]  Alvestrand, H., "An IESG charter", RFC 3710, February
              2004.

   [RFC4181]  Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB
              Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.

   [RFC4441]  Aboba, B., "The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship", RFC 4441,
              March 2006.

   [RFC4663]  Harrington, D., "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge
              MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG", RFC 4663, September 2006.

   [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.

Appendix A.  Current examples of IEEE 802 and IETF Work Item
             Collaboration

A.1.  MIB Review

   Historically the MIB modules for IEEE 802.1 and IEEE 802.3 were
   developed in the IETF Bridge MIB and Hub MIB Working Groups
   respectively.  With travel budgets under pressure, it has become
   increasingly difficult for companies to fund employees to attend both
   IEEE 802 and IETF meetings.  As a result, an alternative was found to
   past arrangements that involved chartering MIB work items within an
   IETF WG by transferring the work to IEEE 802 with expert support for
   MIB review from the IETF.  In order to encourage wider review of MIBs
   developed by IEEE 802 WGs, it is recommended that MIB modules



Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   developed in IEEE 802 follow the MIB guidelines [RFC4181].  An IEEE
   802 group may request assignment of a 'MIB Doctor' to assist in a MIB
   review by contacting the IETF Operations and Management Area
   Director.

   By standardizing IEEE 802 MIBs only within IEEE 802 while utilizing
   the SNMP quality control process, the IETF and IEEE 802 seek to
   ensure quality while decreasing overhead.  The process of transfer of
   the MIB work from the IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG is
   documented in [RFC4663].

A.2.  AAA Review

   IEEE 802 WGs requiring new AAA applications should send a liaison
   request to the IETF.  Where merely new attributes definitions are
   sufficient rather than defining a new authentication, authorization
   and accounting logic/procedures, an Internet-Draft can be submitted
   and review can be requested from AAA-related WGs such as the RADEXT
   or DIME WGs.  For attributes of general utility, and particularly
   those useful in multiple potential applications, allocation from the
   IETF standard attribute space is preferred to creation of IEEE 802
   Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs).  As noted in [RFC3575]: "RADIUS
   defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific extensions and the use of
   that should be encouraged instead of allocation of global attribute
   types, for functions specific only to one vendor's implementation of
   RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed useful".

   Where allocation of VSAs are required, it is recommended that IEEE
   802 create a uniform format for all of IEEE 802, rather than having
   each IEEE 802 group create their own VSA format.  The VSA format
   defined in [IEEE80211F] is inappropriate for this, since the Type
   field is only a single octet, allowing for only 255 attributes.  It
   is recommended that IEEE groups read and follow the recommendations
   in "RADIUS Design Guidelines" [BCP158] and the "Protocol Extensions"
   ID [RADEXT] when designing and reviewing new extensions and
   attributes.















Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   The Diameter Applications Design Guidelines I-D [DADG] explains and
   clarifies the Rules to extend the Diameter base protocol [RFC6733].
   Extending Diameter can mean either the definition of a completely new
   Diameter application or the reuse of commands, (Attribute-value
   pairs) AVPs and AVP values in any combination for the purpose of
   inheriting the features of an existing Diameter application.  The
   recommendation for re-using as much as possible existing
   implementations is meaningful as most of the requirements defined for
   a new application are likely already fulfilled by existing
   applications.  It is recommended that IEEE groups read and follow the
   recommendations in [DADG] when defining and reviewing new extensions
   and attributes.

   In addition to the RADEXT and DIME WGs, an AAA Doctors team
   (directorate) is currently active in the OPS Area and can be
   consulted for more general advice on AAA issues that cross the limits
   of one or the other of the RADIUS or Diameter protocols, or are more
   generic in nature.

Appendix B.  Pointers to Additional Useful Information

   This section provides pointers to additional useful information for
   participants in IEEE 802 and IETF.

B.1.  IEEE 802 Information that may be useful to IETF participants

   IEEE 802 Home Page: <http://IEEE802.org/>

   IEEE 802 policies and procedures: <http://ieee802.org/devdocs.shtml>

   The IEEE 802 WG and TAG main page URLs follow this convention: They
   have the one or two digit numerical designation for the WG or TAG
   appended after <http://IEEE802.org/>.  For example the IEEE 802.1
   main web page is at <http://IEEE802.org/1>, while the IEEE 802.11
   main web page is at <http://IEEE802.org/11>.

B.2.  IETF Information that may be of use to IEEE 802 participants

   Information on IETF procedures may be found in the documents in the
   informative references, and at the URLs below.

   Note: RFCs do not change after they are published.  Rather, they are
   either obsoleted or updated by other RFCs.  Such updates are tracked
   in the rfc-index.txt file.

   Current list and status of all IETF RFCs: <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/
   rfc-index.txt>




Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   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: <http://
   datatracker.ietf.org/wg/> (includes area directors and chair
   contacts, mailing list information, etc.)

   Current list of requested BOFs: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/
   >

   RFC Editor pages about publishing RFCs: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
   index.html> (including available tools and lots of guidance)
   <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html> is particularly helpful.

   Current list of liaison statements: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
   liaison/>

   IETF Intellectual Property Rights Policy and Notices: <http://
   www.ietf.org/ipr/>

   The Tao of the IETF: <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>; (A Novice's
   Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force)

Authors' Addresses

   Spencer Dawkins (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
   Allen, TX   75002
   USA

   Email: spencer@wonderhamster.org


   Patricia Thaler
   Broadcom Corporation
   5025 Keane Drive
   Carmichael, CA   95608
   USA

   Email: pthaler@broadcom.com










Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship            May 2013


   Dan Romascanu
   AVAYA
   Park Atidim, Bldg. #3
   Tel Aviv  61581
   Israel

   Phone: +972-3-6458414
   Email: dromasca@avaya.com










































Dawkins, et al.        Expires November 06, 2013               [Page 31]