Liaison statement
Cooperative Relationship between ITU-T SG15 and CCAMP
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2007-04-08 |
From Group | ccamp |
From Contact | Adrian Farrel |
To Group | ITU-T-SG-15 |
To Contacts | Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int> |
Cc | Yoichi Maeda <yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp> Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com> Kam Lam <hklam@alcatel-lucent.com> Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Dave Ward <dward@cisco.com> CCAMP Mailing List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> |
Response Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Technical Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Purpose | For action |
Deadline | 2007-06-25 Action Taken |
Attachments | (None) |
Body |
The CCAMP working group of the IETF thanks you for your liaison entitled "Liaison Statement to CCAMP responding to ccamp liaison of 21 February 2007". The last paragraphs of your liaison discuss the cooperative relationship between ITU-T SG15 and the IETF's CCAMP working group and we would like to respond to these issues separate from the technical discussions. Over the last few years we have seen an increase in cooperation between our organisations, and we believe that this is to the considerable benefit of the industry. CCAMP has regularly sent a liaison representative to ITU plenary and interim meetings, and useful comments and feedback have been received from these meetings as a result of review of IETF Internet-Drafts in progress. Additionally, Mr. Lyndon Ong has been allocated a regular slot on the CCAMP meeting agenda at each IETF meeting to update the working group on the progress of the ITU-T in areas of interest to CCAMP. While we consider that the free flow of information and the review feedback on CCAMP work to be very valuable, we are also conscious that the mechanisms of the ITU-T and IETF are very different. Therefore we make every attempt to avoid wasting your precious meeting time, and only ask for review when we consider the material to be stable and pertinent. In your liaison, you say: ITU-T SG 15 has been relying on a collaborative relationship with IETF ccamp to provide the protocol support for ASON. This collaborative work should allow the industry to take advantage of the different expertise in each of the Standards Development Organizations. Q.14/15 has not developed protocol specific Recommendations for ASON since 2003, based on an expected collaborative technical relationship, in which IETF ccamp would provide protocol solutions that fully meet the ITU-T ASON requirements. We appreciate your engagement with this process and we believe that it is to the best interests of the industry and to all participants in both bodies. The liaison process provides a mechanism to engage between the two bodies, and it is clear that the earlier communication occurs, the less the chance of misunderstanding or parallel development. In order to describe the IETF's view of the procedures and processes for extending and varying IETF protocols, the IETF has recently published RFC 4775 ("Procedures for Protocol Extensions and Variations"). In order to describe the mechanisms by which other bodies can influence the development of MPLS and GMPLS protocols, the IETF has just consented for publication draft- andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-08.txt ("Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures"). The net effect of these documents is to give the ITU-T clear access into the IETF process and to commit the IETF to work with the ITU-T to develop solutions to requirements that originate in the ITU-T. You state further: However, the effectiveness of this SDO liaison relationship could be improved. We agree that there is always room for improvements on both sides. Some issues will arise from differences in established behaviour within the two bodies, and we are always grateful when you point out opportunities to improve the mechanisms that we have in place. Although neither the ITU-T nor the IETF is likely to make a major change to its operational procedures, there are doubtless very many small areas where improvements could be made. One such area of improvement might be to relax the communication style and mechanisms allowing a more free and rapid exchange of technical opinions amongst the participants. Although this cannot replace the liaison relationship as a means for exchanging the official and consented views of each body, we could gain a lot from increasing the level of discussion rather than relying on the relatively infrequent use of liaison statements. We would welcome your suggestions on how to achieve this - the CCAMP mailing list remains open and might be a suitable vehicle for this type of communication. As you go on to say: We observe that IETF ccamp has responded to some of the technical issues raised by suggesting that the ITU-T participants should provide input directly, to the work in ccamp. We agree that having participants involved in both the ITU-T and IETF improves the communication process. We would like to confirm that this individual participation is not being suggested as a substitute for the liaison relationship. A liaison statement or ITU-T Recommendation represents the consensus of the members of the ITU-T. An individual participating in the work of ccamp is not authorized to represent or negotiate on behalf of the ITU-T. We understand the points you make. Nevertheless, we would like to continue to encourage individual participation. Individuals who are interested in the development rather than the review of protocol solutions would be well advised to bring their ideas to CCAMP early in the process. In the same way, we would advise individuals interested in the work of the ITU-T to become involved there and not to wait for the opportunity to review the material when it is liaised to the IETF as it nears completion. You cite a specific area for improvement in your liaison, and we are grateful for your attempt to isolate specifics since it is far more easy to learn from examples than from general statements. One particular area for improvement of the liaison relationship is communicating the disposition of ITU-T comments related to the interpretation of ASON requirements. For example comments provided on, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-02 (now RFC 4258) and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing eval-00 (now RFC 4652) were not included in the published RFC and the rational for this decision has not been communicated. We are disturbed by your identification of these specific concerns at this time in our communication. Due to the time that has lapsed since the events that you mention, it is hard to provide appropriate and definitive discussion. We believe that the discussion of RFC 4258 and lack of response refers to a liaison received from SG15 in February 2004. Although the issues received full discussion on an open mailing list and included comments from no fewer than seven regular Q14/15 participants, and although the design team that produced the final text of the RFC included Q14/15 participants who could have reported the agreement and rationale back to Q14/15, we agree that it would have been helpful to liaise the outcome of these discussions to you direct. In a subsequent liaison (COM15-LS18) in April 2004, you stated: Q.14/15 would like to thank the IETF CCAMP WG and especially the members of the ASON Routing Requirements Design Team for their efforts to understand and capture ASON Routing Requirements for the future work in IETF. Q.14/15 would like to continue cooperative work with IETF, extending this to the application of routing protocols to support the ASON requirements. We interpreted these sentences to mean that you were aware of the completion of RFC4258 and that you were satisfied with the results. Review of the material that led to RFC 4652 was first liaised to CCAMP by SG15 in May 2005 (COM15-LS57-E) in response to a request for review issued by CCAMP earlier that same month. The liaison from SG15 was marked "For Information" and our understanding of this label (as noted in section 2.2.1.1.6 of RFC 4053) is that "The liaison statement is to inform the addressee of something, and expects no response." In the light of the current situation it would have been wise for the chairs to have confirmed that this was really the intended purpose of the liaison, but we should note that 50% of the author team for RFC 4652 were regular Q14/15 attendees who could have reported the status and decisions (albeit informally) to the Question. Subsequent liaisons on the material of RFC 4652 included: November 2005 (Q12-14 Interim meeting-LS006-E) "Q.14/15 ... strongly supports CCAMP's continued work to address ASON requirements in the routing protocols." Your recent liaison concludes: ITU-T SG15 continues to be interested in providing clarification or validation of IETF ccamp interpretation of the ASON requirements and therefore request that in future any documents under development that are potentially applicable to ASON be liaised so that ITU-T can validate the documents against the ASON requirements. We look forward to receiving your response and hope that we can continue to build a cooperative and productive relationship between ccamp and SG 15. While we cannot promise to send every piece of work that is potentially applicable to ASON, we can and will liaise all work where there is a definitive intention of applicability to ASON. CCAMP continues to be grateful to SG15 for its efforts to ensure that the ASON architecture and requirements are correctly interpreted, and appreciates that this will lead to protocol solutions that are of value to the industry. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard Co-chairs, IETF CCAMP Working Group |