<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">
Network Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Ericsson Inc
Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward
Expires: March 8, 2010 Cisco Systems
M. Betts
Huaweil
September 8, 2009
Joint IETF and ITU-T Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport
Profile process
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 January 1, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
Abstract
The decision to develop a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Transport Profile in cooperation between IETF and ITU-T does not
fully define and document processes for development of the required
RFCs.
This document complements the processes documented in the JWT
decision with a few separate elements; it:
o provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process,
o identifies the expected participation in the process by the ITU-T,
o clarifies the decision rules regarding MPLS-TP documents.
This document is not intended to specify any ITU-T process; to the
extent necessary ITU-T activities will be done according to ITU-T
process/rules.
Nor is this document is intended to specify the IETF working group
process, it is limited to the temporary adaptations of that process
that is the result of that IETF and ITU-T accepted the proposal in
the JWT report to jointly develop the MPLS Transport Profile. In
general it may be said that these adaptations are introduced to
ensure a good and consistent document review across the two
organizations.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. IETF terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.2. ITU-T terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . 7
2.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Developing a MPLS-TP document . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Expectations on ITU-T participation in the process . . . . . . 14
3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents by participants in the
ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Poll for working group documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Responding to an IETF Working Group Last Call . . . . . . 15
4. Specific guidelines that apply to work on MPLS-TP in the
ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
1. Introduction
When IETF and ITU-T entered into the agreement to develop MPLS-TP,
the JWT agreement included the decision that the MPLS-TP documents
should be developed "according to IETF processes". It was also
assumed that there would be close cooperation in reviewing these IETF
documents. The JWT decision is documented in RFC 5317 [RFC5317].
However, the process for this close cooperative review was mostly
left to be decided as the documents evolved. The ITU-T committed to
responding promptly to IETF working group last calls, this may
require the development of the response via correspondence.
Nor is this document is intended to specify the IETF working group
process, it is limited to the temporary adaptations of that process
that is the result of that IETF and ITU-T accepted the proposal in
the JWT report to jointly develop the MPLS Transport Profile. In
general it may be said that these adaptations are introduced to
ensure a good and consistent document review across the two
organizations.
This document complements the process as documented in the JWT
decision with a few separate elements; it:
o Provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process, with
respect to the role of the teams (MPLS Interoperability Design
Team (MEAD Team), the Joint Working Team (JWT) and the ITU-T
MPLS-TP ad hoc team) that has been set up to facilitate the
development of MPLS-TP; see Section 2.
o Identifies the expected participation by the ITU-T in the document
development process; see Section 3.
o Clarifies decision rules regarding MPLS-TP documents; see
Section 4.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.1. Terminology
This section includes a number of terms and abbreviations that are
used in this document. The section is split into two subsection;
IETF terms and ITU-T terms.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
1.1.1. IETF terms and abbreviations
o JWT - Joint Working Team, a team with participants with experience
from standards development in the IETF and the ITU-T.
Note: The JWT is not part of either the IETF or ITU-T, but a group
that has been set up to facilitate cooperation on MPLS-TP between
the two organizations.
o JWT documents - the set of documents envisioned in the
documentation of the JWT decision, see RFC 5317 [RFC5317].
o MEAD team - MPLS Interoperability Design Team, a temporary team
with participants with experience from standards development for
MPLS and transport networks. The MEAD team is chartered to
coordinate the development of MPLS-TP within the IETF and to
coordinate the on MPLS-TP cooperation with the ITU-T.
o MPLS-TP documents - the following sets of documents are counted as
MPLS-TP documents:
* Internet Drafts that are coordinated by the MEAD team.
* Individual Internet Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP problem
space.
* Working group Internet Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP
problem space.
* Internet Drafts that are considered for publication by the IESG
and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.
* Internet Drafts that are approved for publication by the IESG
and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.
* Published RFCs that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.
* ITU-T Recommendations and draft Recommendations in various
stages of development that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.
Documents that originates from the IRTF RFC stream is NOT considered
as MPLS-TP documents.
1.1.2. ITU-T terms and abbreviations
o Ad Hoc on MPLS-TP - A team established by SG 15 of ITU-T to
coordinate the work on MPLS-TP within the ITU-T and to act as a
focal point for communication with the IETF.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
o Contribution - a contribution is a document that is submitted to
the ITU-T to advance work on the development of a Recommendation
or to propose the development of a new Recommendation.
o Recommendation - a Recommendation is the ITU-T standards document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
2. Adaptation of the IETF working group process
The IETF working group processes as defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] are
for the purpose of the MPLS-TP updated as follows.
The IETF works according to a 'rough consensus' model, where working
group chairs determine the consensus after discussions on the mailing
lists. This is applicable to the MPLS-TP work also. The
mpls-tp@ietf.org is the mailing list used to find out consensus and
consensus is determined by the MEAD team chair. After a document has
become a working group document the consensus is decided by the WG
chairs and the MEAD team chair jointly.
A most important part of this process is the information exchange
between the IETF and ITU-T. This information exchange consists of
two equally important pieces:
o informal information exchange
this is done primarily by E-Mail to the relevant mailing lists.
Information sent from IETF, IETF areas and working groups, or from
the IETF MEAD team are sent to and areas and the
ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int mailing list. Information sent from ITU-T
to the IETF should e sent to the MEAD team (mead@ietf.org) and/or
the mpls-tp@ietf.org mailing list.
o formal information exchange
In addition to E-Mail, a formal information exchange is
accomplished by liaison correspondence between the two
organisations. Exchange of liaisons makes it possible to follow
the request/response exchange between the organisations in more
detail.
2.1. Adaptation of the IETF working group process
The flow chart below describes the adaption of the working group
process
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
............. .............
: Ind Docs :------+ : JWT docs :
............. | .............
| | |
| ind-00 (1) | ind-00 (2) | ind-00 (3)
| | |
v | v
+-----------+ | +----------------+ (4) +-------+
| WG proc | +------->| MEAD team proc |<----->| ITU-T |
| |-------+ +--| | +-------+
+-----------+ | | +----------------+ (5) |
+-> ind-00, ind-01, etc | | ind-00, ind-01, etc <-+<-----+
| | (6) +--+---+ (6) | |
+----------+ |(7) +-------------+
review +----+ review
|
poll for wg doc -----------------+
| | (7a)
v v
+-------------+ (8) +-------+
+----------> | wg doc |<------------>| ITU-T |
| +-------------+ +-------+
| | +-> wg-00, wg-01, etc |
| | | | (9) | (10)
| | +----------+<----------------+
| (11) | review
| v
| +-----------------+ (12) +---------+
(14b) | | wg last call |<----------->| ITU-T |
| +-----------------+ +---------+
| | ^ |
| (13)| |(14a) | (15)
| v | |
| +---------+ |
+-------| ITU-T | |
+---------+ |
|
v
+-----------------+
| req for publ |
+-----------------+
2.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process
This section gives guidelines for how the flow chart above could be
traversed.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
2.2.1. Developing a MPLS-TP document
Individual MPLS-TP documents may take different paths through the
this process, the numbers in the list below are mapped to the numbers
in the flow chart above.
Although the different paths through the flow chart are given as
'options' it is always possible for the MEAD team to step in and take
over the shepherding of a particular MPLS-TP Internet Draft . This
is done in cooperation between the MEAD team chair, the relevant
working group chairs and the document editors/authors.
1. They may be intended for and managed by a working group.
This means that the author, or authors, of such a document have
chosen to send the document to a working group instead of
running through the MEAD team. Normal IETF process will kick in
in such cases and working group chairs will agree to which
working group(s) such a document will be taken.
2. They may be coordinated by the MEAD team.
This means that the author, or authors, of such a document have
chosen to send the document to the MEAD team to be coordinated
with the rest of the MPLS-TP documents that is in the purview of
the MEAD team.
3. They may be originated by the MEAD team based on the JWT
decision.
In documentation of the work of the JWT, there is a proposed
document structure. The MEAD team used this structure to decide
on a set of documents that will, when completed, constitute the
MPLS-TP standard. This set of documents may change slightly, if
- e.g. - it becomes more appropriate to split a single document
into two or more, or if some new aspect of MPLS-TP needs to be
specified.
4. Everytime a document is accepted by the MEAD team into the set
of documents coordinated by the MEAD team a liaison is sent to
the ITU-T with a pointer to that document. At the same time a
note is sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list informing
the list that the document has become a MEAD team document.
The ITU-T may chose to respond to the liaison but is not
required to do so, see Section 3 and Section 4.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
5. At any time, it is possible for the ITU-T SG and Question
participants to send review comments on MEAD team documents. It
is also possible for the MEAD team to ask for such reviews and
comments.
Any time such input or requests are sent between the two
organizations it SHALL be accompanied by a note from the MPLS-TP
ad hoc team chair(s) to the MEAD team mailing list, or from the
MEAD team chair to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list. This
is done to enhance the efficiency of the information exchange.
6. A working group or the MEAD team may issue requests for general
comments on MPLS-TP documents at any time, if it is deemed
appropriate to extend these requests to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team
this is done via a note according to entry (5) in this list.
7. If a MPLS-TP document seems mature enough to become a working
group document, a poll is done on the mpls-tp mailing list and
the appropriate working group mailing list (7), this request
will also be sent to the ITU-T as a liaison (7a) and a note will
also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team.
Which working group a document goes into is decided jointly
between the MEAD team, working group chairs of the potential
working groups and the document editors/authors.
If the document is accepted as a working group document the
working group takes over the revision control of the document.
The ITU-T is expected to respond to the liaison within in the
time indicated in the liaison, see Section 3 and Section 4.
8. Every time a MPLS-TP document is accepted as a working group
document by any IETF working group, a liaison is sent to the
ITU-T with a pointer to the document. At the same time, a note
is sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list informing the
list that the document has become a working group document.
9. Working group documents may be reviewed in several steps, every
time such a review is initiated the MPLS-TP ad hoc team is
notified (10).
Note that most comments leading to updates of working group
documents are a result of spontaneous individual reviews and
comments from the individual participants in the MPLS-TP effort.
10. Every time a review is initiated by a working group the
appropriate ITU-T SGs and Questions will be notified by E-Mail
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team.
Optionally the request for review may be accompanied by a
liaison to formalize the request.
The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is responsible for ensuring that any
e-mail requests are copied/forwarded to the relevant SGs and
Questions.
11. When a document is deemed mature enough, a working group last
call is initiated. At this time the action describe under item
12 in this list MUST be executed.
12. Procedures to be followed when a working group last call is
initiated.
* A liaison containing a request for participation in the
working group last call will be sent to the appropriate ITU-T
SGs and Questions.
* A notification that the working group last call is taking
place will be provided to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team via E-Mail
sent to the MPLS-TP mailing list.
* ITU-T is REQUIRED to respond to the liaison within the time
indicated. The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is expected to verify
that all the SGs and Questions within the ITU-T that need to
respond to the working group last call are aware that it has
been issued.
13. When all last call comments are addressed and/or responded to,
the document will be sent to the ITU-T, asking if the document
is ready to be sent to the IESG with a request for publication.
The response sought from ITU-T is either an acknowledgment that
the document is ready to publish or a response that there is
further work that needs to be done.
Note: WG last call may be re-iterated, for the entire document
or limited to only verify the updates made because of an earlier
working group last call.
14. The ITU-T has one week to respond (yes or no) to the question
posed in (13).
The answer can be either "yes - go ahead" (14a), in which case
the Working Group will request publication; or ...
... it can be "no - more work is needed" (14b), in which case it
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
will go back into the normal working group process to identify
what is needed.
15. When the ITU-T gives the final acknowledgement (14a), a request
for publication will be sent to the IESG (15).
The document that is sent to the ITU-T in step (13) and which
generates a positivie response from ITU-T (14a) is sent
unchanged, save for editorial changes, to the IESG with a
request for publication (15) as a RFC.
Once this request for publication is sent, the last point in
this process where it is acceptable to allow ITU-T influence in
the development of a document is passed. After this point, the
document will be handled as any other IETF document.
2.2.1.1. Naming conventions for MPLS-TP Internet Drafts
To make it easier to search in the IETF Internet Draft repositories
the the following guidelines should be followed for the MPLS-TP
Internet Draft filenames.
o All MPLS-TP Internet Draft should include the sequence "mpls-tp"
in the filename.
o Individual MPLS-TP Internet Draft should be named according to
this format:
draft-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt
"name" is the last name of the main editor, or an acronym
indicating the last names of the set of editors.
"topic" indicates the content of the draft, e.g. "oam-framework".
"??" indictes a two digit version number, starting with "00".
o MPLS working group documents should be named according to this
format:
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt
o MPLS-TP documents from other working groups shouldbe named
according to this format:
draft-ietf-wg-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt
"wg-name" is the acronym for any working group chartered to do
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
MPLS-TP work, e.g. pwe3 or ccamp.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
3. Expectations on ITU-T participation in the process
The IETF and ITU-T processes for the development of the MPLS-TP
standards interconnect at the following point in the flow chart
above: (4), (5), (7a), (8), (10) and (12). This section briefly
describes what is expected to happen on the ITU-T side at the
interaction points.
3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document
(4) is a point at which the MEAD team communicates to the ITU-T that
a document is considered to be accepted for coordination by the MEAD
team.
The ITU-T is expected to respond to the communication with a simple
ACK or NAK, however a non-response is counted as an ACK.
An ACK means that ITU-T accepts that the document has become a MEAD
team document, a NAK means that ITU-T has issues that needs to be
resolved before the document is allowed to progress.
3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents by participants in the ITU-T
(5) and (10) offer possibilities for ITU-T, or people active in the
ITU-T, to send un-triggered comments on MEAD team or working group
documents. Such comments shall be sent to the mpls-tp list and for
working group documents also to the appropriate working group mailing
list. Comments received in this way will be treated in the same way
any as other individual comments received on the IETF documents.
3.3. Poll for working group documents
(7a) is the point at which an IETF working group informs the ITU-T
that a poll to progress a document to an IETF working group document
has been started.
It is not necessary, or required, for the ITU-T to respond to this
message. If the ITU-T has serious concerns these should be provided
via a liaison statement. If the ITU-T has no serious concerns it is
allowed and encouraged that individual participants provide comments.
Such responses shall be sent to the appropriate working group and
mpls-tp mailing lists and represent the view of the person sending
the mail.
An Internet Draft is ready to become a working group draft if it
meets at least the three criteria below.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
o it is within the charter of the working group
o it addresses a problem that needs to be solved
o it is a good enough start toward solving this problem
Responses to polls checking if a document is ready to become a
working group document should be limited to considering if the
document meets those three criteria.
3.4. Responding to an IETF Working Group Last Call
(12) is the point in the process where ITU-T is made aware of that an
IETF working group last call has been started. The working group
last call is issued when a working group document is getting close to
being ready for publication. The intention is to make sure that
there are no important pieces missing and that technical details are
correct.
According to the JWT decision ITU-T is required to respond to a
working group last call within the time set in announcing the working
group last call.
The chair of an IETF working group that starts a working group last
call will send a liaison to the ITU-T announcing the working group
last call. A message will also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team.
The IETF will make a best effort attempt to target the SGs and
Questions that should be involved in responding to the working group
last call. However, the ITU-T has to make sure that the appropriate
entities within the ITU-T participate in responding to the working
group last call. The ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team coordinates the
development of the ITU-T response to the working group last call.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
4. Specific guidelines that apply to work on MPLS-TP in the ITU-T
These guidelines apply to progressing work on MPLS-TP in the ITU-T.
Any member of the ITU-T may send a MPLS-TP contribution to a ITU-T
Study Group or Question.
Before the ITU-T initiates any new work (i.e. items not previously
identified by the JWT) based on such contributions the ITU-T shall
send a liaison to the IETF. The message will go to the MEAD team,
and the team is responsible for creating a consolidated IETF
response.
The IETF is expected to respond to the information that a new
MPLS-TP work item has been proposed with an ACK or NAK.
If the response is a NAK that work item is held until the issues
is resolved.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
5. IANA considerations
There are no requests for IANA allocation of code points in this
document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
6. Security considerations
This document defines a process adaptation for the cooperation
between IETF and ITU-T and thus does not introduce any new security
considerations.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Eric Gray who helped with grammar and useful comments.
Thanks to Tom Petch who spent time trying to sort out what I wanted
to say and has sent comments that helped clarify the document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5317] Bryant, S. and L. Andersson, "Joint Working Team (JWT)
Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a
Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP document process September 2009
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Ericsson Inc
Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
David Ward
Cisco Systems
Email: dward@cisco.com
Malcolm Betts
Huaweil
Email: malcolm.betts@huawei.com
Andersson, et al. Expires March 8, 2010 [Page 21]
</div>