The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship
RFC 7241
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Informational
(July 2014)
Errata
Updated by RFC 9141
Obsoletes RFC 4441
Was
draft-iab-rfc4441rev
(iab)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Spencer Dawkins , Patricia Thaler , Dan Romascanu , Dr. Bernard D. Aboba | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-dawkins-iab-rfc4441rev | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IAB state | Published RFC | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) |
RFC 7241
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) S. Dawkins
Request for Comments: 7241 Huawei
Obsoletes: 4441 P. Thaler
Category: Informational Broadcom
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Romascanu
AVAYA
B. Aboba, Ed.
Microsoft Corporation
July 2014
The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship
Abstract
This document describes the standardization cooperation between
Project 802 of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This document
obsoletes RFC 4441.
Note: This document was collaboratively developed by authors from
both the IEEE 802 and IETF leadership and was reviewed and approved
by the IEEE 802 Executive Committee prior to publication.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7241.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. Why Cooperate? .............................................4
2. Organization, Participation, and Membership .....................4
2.1. IEEE 802 ...................................................5
2.2. IETF .......................................................7
2.3. Structural Differences .....................................8
2.4. Cultural Differences .......................................9
2.5. Mailing Lists .............................................11
3. Document Access and Cross-Referencing ..........................12
3.1. Access to IETF Documents ..................................12
3.2. Access to IEEE 802 Standards ..............................12
3.3. Access to IEEE 802 Working Group Drafts ...................12
3.4. Cross-Referencing .........................................15
4. Guidance on Cooperation ........................................16
4.1. Exchange of Information about Work Items ..................16
4.2. Document Review and Approval ..............................20
4.3. Solicited Review Processes ................................23
5. Liaison Managers and Liaison Statements ........................23
5.1. Liaison Managers ..........................................24
5.2. Liaison Statements ........................................24
6. Protocol Parameter Allocation ..................................24
6.1. IANA ......................................................24
6.2. IEEE Registration Authority ...............................25
6.3. IEEE 802 Registration at the Working Group Level ..........26
6.4. Joint-Use Registries ......................................26
7. Security Considerations ........................................26
8. References .....................................................26
8.1. Normative References ......................................26
8.2. Informative References ....................................26
9. Acknowledgments ................................................30
10. IAB Members at the Time of Approval ...........................31
11. IEEE 802 Executive Committee Members at the Time of Approval ..31
Appendix A. Current Examples of IEEE 802 and IETF Cooperation ....32
A.1. MIB Review .................................................32
A.2. AAA Review .................................................32
A.3 EAP Review .................................................33
Appendix B. Pointers to Additional Information ...................34
B.1. IEEE 802 Information .......................................34
B.2. IETF Information ...........................................34
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
1. Introduction
This document contains a set of principles and guidelines that serve
as the basis for coordination between Project 802 of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802) and the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), a program under the Internet Society
(ISOC) organizational umbrella [BCP101]. The objective is to
encourage 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.
While this document is intended to improve cooperation between the
two organizations, it does not change any of the formal practices or
procedures of either organization.
1.1. Why Cooperate?
IEEE 802 and the IETF are independent standards organizations that
each use standards produced by the other organization and develop
standards dependent on those produced by the other organization.
This dependency may extend to carrying attributes in protocols that
reflect technologies defined by the other organization.
The dependencies between IEEE 802 and IETF standards are a motivation
for cooperation between the organizations. However, since the
benefits of cooperation come at the cost of coordination overhead,
the benefits of coordination must outweigh the cost.
The IETF benefits from coordination by obtaining improved access to
IEEE 802 expertise in the widely deployed and widely used IEEE 802
Local Area Network architecture [ARCH802].
IEEE 802 benefits from coordination by obtaining improved access to
IETF expertise on IP datagram encapsulation, routing, transport, and
security, as well as specific applications of interest to IEEE 802.
2. Organization, Participation, and Membership
IEEE 802 and IETF are similar in some ways but different in others.
When working on projects of interest to both organizations, it is
important to understand the similarities and differences.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
2.1. IEEE 802
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, while
advocating for them on a global basis. Areas of standardization work
include Ethernet, Bridging and Virtual Bridged LANs, Wireless LAN
(Local Area Network), Wireless PAN (Personal Area Network), Wireless
MAN (Metropolitan Area Network), Wireless Coexistence, Media
Independent Handover Services, and Wireless RAN (Regional Access
Network). Within IEEE 802, a Working Group provides the focus for
each of these areas.
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.
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.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Participation in IEEE 802 Working Groups is at the level of
individuals -- participants are human beings and not companies.
While participation 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. It is not necessary to be eligible to
vote in order 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:
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 two-year term. The Working Group Chair provides a stable
contact point for cooperation 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.
The Task Group Chair often serves for the duration of a
project. The Task Group Chair provides a stable contact point
for cooperation between the two organizations on a particular
project.
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).
The Study Group chair provides a stable contact point for
cooperation between the two organizations on a study group
topic.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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
cooperation 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 cooperation.
2.2. IETF
The IETF Standards Process is defined in [BCP9]. [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.
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. The IETF Working Group process is defined in [BCP25].
WGs are organized into areas, and each area is managed by one or more
Area Directors. Collectively, the Area Directors constitute the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) [RFC3710].
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 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) charter [BCP39] assigns the IAB
several responsibilities relevant to this document:
1. IESG Appointment Confirmation [BCP10]
2. Architectural Oversight
3. Standards Process Oversight and Appeal
4. Appointment of the RFC Series Editor [RFC6635] and Independent
Submission Editor [RFC6548]
5. Appointment of the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
operator [RFC6220]
6. Oversight of External Liaisons for the IETF [BCP102]
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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].
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.
IETF meets in plenary sessions three times per year. Some Working
Groups schedule additional interim meetings, which may be either
face-to-face or "virtual". Information about IETF meetings is
available at <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html>.
Information about IETF Working Group interim meetings is available on
<http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim-meetings.html>.
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.
Participation in the IETF is open to anyone (technically, anyone with
access to email sufficient to allow subscription to one or more IETF
mailing lists). All IETF participants act as individuals. There is
no concept of "IETF membership".
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 is available at
<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/>.
2.3. Structural Differences
IEEE 802 and IETF have similar structures, but the terms they use are
different, and even conflicting. For example, both IEEE 802 and IETF
use the term "Working Group", but this means very different things in
the two organizations.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Thumbnail 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
Birds of a Feather ("BOF") sessions.
Several IETF Areas also have one or more directorates to support the
work of the Area Directors. Area Directors often ask directorate
members to review documents or provide input on technical questions.
These directorates are often a source of expertise on specific
topics. The list of Area Directorates is at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>. IEEE 802 does not have
a corresponding organizational entity.
2.4. Cultural Differences
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, as determined by Working Group chairs". 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. Although IEEE
Working Groups ultimately rely on voting for decision-making,
they vary widely in their use of consensus versus voting in the
course of a meeting and in their attention to Robert's Rules
[RONR].
Running Code: David Clark coined the phrase "We reject kings,
presidents and voting. 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 considers both
technical and economic feasibility when deciding whether to
approve new work, as noted in Section 4.1.7.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Decision-making: IEEE 802 Working Groups vary in their reliance upon
voting versus consensus, and in the breadth of coverage of an
individual motion, but ultimately, all rely upon a 75 percent
vote to decide technical issues, and a 50 percent +1 vote to
decide other issues. 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 and identify technical
concerns and objections, but this is not considered "voting".
IETF consensus and humming is discussed further in [RFC7282].
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 to 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.
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
locations 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, attendance is not absolutely necessary,
and some significant contributors do not attend most face-to-
face IETF meetings. However, finding people interested in a
proposal for new work, or soliciting backing for ideas, is
often more easily accomplished face-to-face, such as in a
hallway or bar. Significant contributors to IEEE 802 almost
always attend face-to-face meetings; participation in IEEE 802
meetings is a condition for WG membership.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Lifetime of Standards: IEEE 802 periodically reviews existing
standards. IETF Standards Track documents may be updated or
obsoleted by newer Standards Track documents, but there is no
formal periodic review for existing Standards Track documents.
The status of specific IETF standards is available through the
IETF "Datatracker" [DATATRACKER]. Because these status changes
happen independently, standards from each organization may
refer to documents that are no longer standards in the other
organization.
Overlapping terminology: As two independent standards development
organizations, IEEE 802 and IETF have developed vocabularies
that overlap. For instance, IEEE 802 "ballots" at several
levels of the organization during document approval, while IETF
documents are only "balloted" during IESG review. The IESG
uses "ballots" to indicate that all technical concerns have
been addressed, not to indicate that the IESG agrees with a
document. The intention is to "discuss" technical issues with
a document, and "no" is not one of the choices on an IESG
ballot.
2.5. 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.
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 that are compiled with responses in comment resolution
documents.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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.
Some IEEE 802 participants refer to mailing lists as "reflectors".
3. Document Access and Cross-Referencing
During the course of IEEE 802 and IETF cooperation, 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.
3.1. Access to IETF Documents
IETF Internet-Drafts may be located using the IETF Datatracker
interface (see [DATATRACKER]) or via the IETF tools site at
<http://tools.ietf.org>. RFCs may be found at either of the above
sites, or via the RFC Editor web site at <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
3.2. Access to IEEE 802 Standards
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 (although registration is required). IEEE 802 standards are
added to the Get IEEE 802 program six months after publication. This
program is approved year by year, but has been in place for several
years.
3.3. 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, access is provided over 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.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
An alternative access mechanism which may more easily enable document
access for IETF WGs cooperating 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, copyright restrictions prohibit incorporating
material into IETF documents or postings.
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, sending attachments in proprietary formats to an IETF
mailing list is discouraged.
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 their details. 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.
3.3.2. Access to Internal IEEE 802 Working Group Documents
Generally, the archives of minutes and contributions to IEEE 802
groups are publicly and freely available.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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 versioning.
2. Online 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
conventions and upload link are at
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/filenaming.html>. 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. These home pages are available from the
IEEE 802.3 home page, at <http://www.ieee802.org/3/>. Files are
uploaded by emailing to the subgroup chair.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
3.3.3. Contributions to IEEE 802 Working Groups
In general, development of standards in IEEE 802 is contribution
driven. 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.
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.
3.4. Cross-Referencing
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 should be labeled "Work in Progress". If the
references are normative, this will 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 be avoided if at all possible.
Informative references in IEEE 802 standards are placed in a
bibliography, so they 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 Std 802.1Q(TM)-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
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
renumbered 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.
4. Guidance on Cooperation
This section describes how existing processes within the IETF and
IEEE 802 may be used to enable cooperation between the organizations.
Historically, much of the work of coordination has fallen on
individuals attending meetings of both organizations. However, as
noted in "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1
WG" [RFC4663], downward pressure on travel budgets has made it
increasingly difficult for participants to attend face-to-face
meetings in both organizations. That pressure has continued in the
intervening years. As a result, the coordination mechanisms
described in this section typically do not require meeting
attendance.
4.1. 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.
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. Where
individuals notice a potential conflict or need for coordination, the
issue should be brought to the attention of the relevant Working
Group chairs and/or Area Directors.
4.1.1. How IEEE 802 Is Informed about Active IETF Work Items
The responsibility is on IEEE 802 Working Groups to review current
IETF Working Groups to determine if there are any topics of mutual
interest. Working Group charters and active Internet-Drafts can be
found in the IETF Datatracker [DATATRACKER]. 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 5.2).
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
4.1.2. How IETF Is Informed about Active IEEE 802 Work Items
It is the responsibility of IETF Working Groups to periodically
review the IEEE 802 web site to determine if there is work in
progress of mutual interest.
IEEE 802 Working Group status reports are published at the beginning
and end of each plenary at <http://ieee802.org/minutes>. 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>. 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.
If an IETF working group identifies a common area of work or a need
for cooperation, 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 5.2).
4.1.3. Overview of Notifications of New Work Proposals
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 organization that cooperation may
be required.
2. For both organizations, the top-level coordination body receiving
that notification is responsible for determining whether
cooperation is, in fact, required, and informing the specific
groups within the organization who may be affected by the
proposal for new work.
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
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
as "belt and suspenders" to reduce the chances that proposals for new
work in one organization escape notice in the other organization when
cooperation will be required.
4.1.4. The New-Work Mailing List
Several standards development organizations (SDOs), 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 cooperation with the IETF. Subscription
requests may be sent to the IAB Executive Director.
4.1.5. 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.
4.1.6. 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 cooperation with IEEE
802 can be extended to allow more time for discussion within IEEE
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.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
4.1.7. 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 that 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 "Five
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.
4.1.8. 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 email not
later than 5:00 PM Tuesday of the plenary session (in the time zone
where the plenary is located).
4.1.9. Other Mechanisms for Coordination
From time to time, IEEE 802 and IETF may agree to use additional
mechanisms for coordination between the two groups. The details of
these mechanisms may vary over time, but the overarching goal is to
communicate effectively as needed.
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
more expected. These conference calls help the two organizations
coordinate more effectively by allowing higher-bandwidth discussions
than formal liaison statements would allow and by permitting more
timely interactions than waiting for face-to-face meetings.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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/>.
4.2. Document Review and Approval
During the course of IEEE 802 and IETF cooperation, 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.
4.2.1. IEEE 802 Draft Review and Balloting Processes
IEEE 802 drafts are reviewed and balloted at multiple stages of 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.
4.2.1.1. 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.
4.2.1.2. 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.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Initial Working Group ballots are at least 30 days. Recirculation
ballots to review draft changes and comment resolutions are open at
least 10 days.
In order to submit a WG ballot, contact the WG Chair for the
submission tool currently in use, as the tools may change over time.
4.2.1.3. 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>). 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.
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".
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Initial Sponsor ballots are open for at least 30 days. Recirculation
ballots to review draft changes and proposed comment resolutions are
open at least 10 days.
4.2.1.4. Ballot Resolution
At each level, the relevant group (Task Group for TG ballots, Working
Group for WG and Sponsor ballots) examines the ballot comments and
determines their disposition. The Editor (or editorial team) may
prepare proposed dispositions. Task Group procedures vary, but at
the Working Group level, the Working Group must vote 75 percent to
approve the final ballot disposition in order to advance the
document.
4.2.2. IETF Draft Review and Approval Processes
The IETF Working Group Process is defined in [BCP25]. The overall
IETF standards process is defined in [BCP9].
As noted in Section 2.4, IETF Working Groups do not "ballot" to
determine Working Group consensus to forward documents to the IESG
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 announced on the Working Group's
mailing list.
2. When Working Group chairs issue a "Working Group Last Call"
("WGLC") for a draft, to confirm that the Working Group has
consensus to request publication. 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 announced on the Working
Group's mailing list.
3. When the Internet Engineering Steering Group issues an "IETF Last
Call" ("Last Call") for a draft. IETF Last Call is a formal and
required part of the review and approval process, is addressed to
the larger IETF community, and is often the first time the entire
community has looked at the document. IETF Last Call is signaled
on the IETF-Announce Mailing List, and comments and feedback are
ordinarily directed to the IETF Discussion Mailing List.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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.
4.3. 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 (Structure of Management Information) MIB
modules and AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting)
described in [RFC4441]. IESG members routinely solicit directorate
reviews as a means to request 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.
5. Liaison Managers and Liaison Statements
Both IEEE 802 and IETF work best when people participate directly in
work of mutual interest, but that is 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.
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
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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.
5.1. 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>.
5.2. 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].
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 Numbers Authority (IANA) as a
central authority that administers registries for most protocol
parameter allocations. The overarching document describing this is
[BCP26]. [BCP141] 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).
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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 [BCP26],
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 knowledgeable in
the technology domain, appointed by the IESG and given specific
criteria to use when reviewing requests.
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 web site, at
<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/general.html>.
Regarding Ethertype allocation:
Some IETF protocol specifications make use of Ethertypes. Ethertypes
are a fairly scarce 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
[ARCH802] 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.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
6.3. IEEE 802 Registration at the 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.
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. Security Considerations
This document describes cooperation procedures and has no direct
Internet security implications.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BCP26] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[BCP141] Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and
IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 7042, October 2013.
[RFC4691] Andersson, L., Ed., "Guidelines for Acting as an IETF
Liaison to Another Organization", RFC 4691, October 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[ARCH802] IEEE 802, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802 Std
802(TM)-2014, 2014.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
[BCP9] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011.
Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
December 2013.
Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.
[BCP10] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
Dawkins, S., Ed., "Nominating Committee Process: Earlier
Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of
Volunteers", BCP 10, RFC 5633, August 2009.
Dawkins, S., Ed., "The Nominating Committee Process: Open
Disclosure of Willing Nominees", BCP 10, RFC 5680, October
2009.
Leiba, B., "Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating
Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership", BCP 10, RFC
6859, January 2013.
[BCP11] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October
1996.
[BCP25] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
October 2004.
[BCP39] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP
39, RFC 2850, May 2000.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
[BCP101] Austein, R., Ed., and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
4071, April 2005.
Carpenter, B., Ed., and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, January 2006.
[BCP102] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "IAB
Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships",
BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005.
[BCP103] Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for
Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF", BCP
103, RFC 4053, April 2005.
[BCP111] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.
Heard, C., Ed., "RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF
Trust", BCP 111, RFC 4841, March 2007.
[BCP132] Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management", BCP
132, RFC 4962, July 2007.
[BCP158] DeKok, A., Ed., and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines",
BCP 158, RFC 6158, March 2011.
[DADG] Morand, L., Ed., Fajardo, V. and H. Tschofenig, "Diameter
Applications Design Guidelines", Work in Progress, June
2014.
[DATATRACKER]
Internet Engineering Task Force, "IETF Datatracker",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org>.
[IEEE80211F]
IEEE, "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", IEEE 802 Std 802.11F(TM)-2003, 2003.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
[IEEE-802.16-Liaison1]
Liaison letter from IEEE 802.16 to Bernard Aboba, March
17, 2005,
<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-05_025.pdf>.
[IEEE-802.16-Liaison2]
Liaison letter from IEEE 802.16 to Bernard Aboba, May 5,
2005,
<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-05_039.pdf>.
[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.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC4137] Vollbrecht, J., Eronen, P., Petroni, N., and Y. Ohba,
"State Machines for Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) Peer and Authenticator", RFC 4137, August 2005.
[RFC4441] Aboba, B., Ed., "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.
[RFC5247] Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework",
RFC 5247, August 2008.
[RFC6220] McPherson, D., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., Klensin, J., Ed.,
Huston, G., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board,
"Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter
Registry Operators", RFC 6220, April 2011.
[RFC6548] Brownlee, N., Ed., and IAB, "Independent Submission Editor
Model", RFC 6548, June 2012.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, June 2012.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
[RFC6756] Trowbridge, S., Ed., Lear, E., Ed., Fishman, G., Ed., and
S. Bradner, Ed., "Internet Engineering Task Force and
International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines", RFC
6756, September 2012.
[RFC6929] DeKok, A. and A. Lior, "Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929, April
2013.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC
7282, June 2014.
[RONR] Robert, H., et al., "Robert's Rules of Order Newly
Revised", 11th ed., Da Capo Press, 2011,
<http://www.robertsrules.com/>.
9. Acknowledgments
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.
The initial draft of this document was assembled by a team of
participants from both IEEE 802 and IETF. Team members included Dan
Romascanu, Dorothy Stanley, Eric Gray, Patricia Thaler, Roger Marks,
Ross Callon, Spencer Dawkins, and Subir Das.
We also thank Abdussalam Baryun, Adrian Farrel, Dave Thaler, Jari
Arkko, Russ Housley, Jouni Korhonen, Max Riegel, Norm Finn, Pete
Resnick, Peter Yee, S. Moonesamy, and Stephen Farrell for providing
review comments.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
10. IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Bernard Aboba
Jari Arkko
Marc Blanchet
Ross Callon
Alissa Cooper
Joel Halpern
Russ Housley
Eliot Lear
Xing Li
Erik Nordmark
Andrew Sullivan
Dave Thaler
Hannes Tschofenig
11. IEEE 802 Executive Committee Members at the Time of Approval
Radhakrishna Canchi
Clint Chaplin
John D'Ambrosia
Subir Das
James Gilb
Bob Heile
Tony Jeffree
Bruce Kraemer
David Law
John Lemon
Mike Lynch
Roger Marks
Apurva Mody
Paul Nikolich
Max Riegel
Jon Rosdahl
Steve Shellhammer
Pat Thaler
Geoff Thompson
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Appendix A. Current Examples of IEEE 802 and IETF Cooperation
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. Instead, the
work was transferred to IEEE 802 with expert support for MIB review
from the IETF. The process of transfer of the MIB work from the IETF
Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG is documented in [RFC4663].
By standardizing IEEE 802 MIBs only within IEEE 802 while utilizing
the IETF SNMP quality control process, the IETF and IEEE 802 seek to
ensure quality while decreasing overhead. In order to encourage
wider review of MIBs developed by IEEE 802 WGs, it is recommended
that MIB modules developed in IEEE 802 follow the MIB guidelines
[BCP111]. 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.
A.2. AAA Review
IEEE 802 WGs requiring new AAA applications should send a liaison
request to the IETF. Where new attribute definitions are sufficient,
rather than defining new authentication, authorization, and
accounting logic and procedures, an Internet-Draft can be submitted
and review can be requested from AAA-related WGs such as the RADEXT
or DIME WGs.
In addition to the RADEXT and DIME WGs, a "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.
For attributes of general utility, 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 (Attribute 26) for functions
specific only to one vendor's implementation of RADIUS, where no
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
interoperability is deemed useful. For functions specific only to
one vendor's implementation of RADIUS, the use of that should be
encouraged instead of the allocation of global attribute types."
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 Working 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 802 Working Groups read and follow the
recommendations in "RADIUS Design Guidelines" [BCP158] and "Protocol
Extensions" [RFC6929] when designing and reviewing new extensions and
attributes.
"Diameter Applications Design Guidelines" [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 reusing existing applications as much as possible
is meaningful as most of the requirements defined for a new
application are likely already fulfilled by existing applications.
It is recommended that IEEE 802 Working Groups read and follow the
recommendations in [DADG] when defining and reviewing new extensions
and attributes.
A.3. EAP Review
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [RFC3748],
provides a framework within which authentication mechanisms, known as
methods, can be defined. In addition to supporting authentication,
EAP also provides for key derivation as described in [RFC5247].
State machines for EAP are described in [RFC4137].
As noted in [BCP132] and [RFC5247], security issues can arise in
integration of EAP within lower layers. Therefore, it is recommended
that IEEE 802 WGs looking to incorporate support for EAP send a
liaison request to the IETF, requesting assistance in carrying out a
security review. As an example, a security review of IEEE 802.16 was
carried out by the EAP WG, at the request of IEEE 802.16
[IEEE-802.16-Liaison1] [IEEE-802.16-Liaison2]. Where development of
new EAP authentication methods is sufficient, an Internet-Draft can
be submitted and review can be requested from WGs such as the EAP
Method Update (EMU) WG.
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
Appendix B. Pointers to Additional Information
This section provides pointers to additional useful information for
participants in IEEE 802 and IETF.
B.1. IEEE 802 Information
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
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 RFCs:
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html>
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> (including available tools and guidance)
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html> is particularly helpful.
Current list of liaison statements:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/>
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 34]
RFC 7241 IEEE 802/IETF Relationship July 2014
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
Huawei Technologies
1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
Allen, TX 75002
USA
EMail: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Patricia Thaler
Broadcom Corporation
5025 Keane Drive
Carmichael, CA 95608
USA
EMail: pthaler@broadcom.com
Dan Romascanu
AVAYA
Park Atidim, Bldg. #3
Tel Aviv 61581
Israel
EMail: dromasca@avaya.com
Bernard Aboba (editor)
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
EMail: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
Dawkins, et al. Informational [Page 35]