Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with DISCUSS)

I suspect that two issues are getting confused here.

1)    Is it valid to normatively reference an ISO standard from an IETF 
RFC. Yes. It is publicly available even if one has to pay for it. All 
conditions are met.

2)    Do IETF members need to be able to view the ISO standard in order 
to review and complete the IETF RFC. Possibly yes for WG review and WG 
last call. In prior cases, documents (not ISO ones) have been put up in 
an area of the IETF, possibly with some limited access, or for IETF 
participants to be given limited access to the other SDOs website (or an 
area of it), or circulated on a need to have basis, so they can be used 
in such a review. I do not remember this to be an issue for IESG last call.

There were a set of cooperation agreements with other SDOs that set out 
some of these things. I know 3GPP/ETSI, and ITU-T existed. I don't think 
there was ever an ISO one, but I may be wrong.

regards

Keith Drage

On 18/06/2021 17:01, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
> Murray,
>
> First, it’s not that the 21122 is not publicly available.  It is, 
> please see here: https://www.iso.org/standard/74535.html 
> <https://www.iso.org/standard/74535.html> I think the issue at hand is 
> that the document is not available **for free**.  AFAIK, the IETF does 
> not have a written requirement for normative reference to be free, but 
> requiring every interested WG/IESG member to pay a CHF 178 fee for a 
> license to enable a review is also not easily palatable.
>
> Second, there are many examples where the IETF normatively references 
> ISO documents that are equally not available for free.  You can go 
> back to RFC 2250, or, for a more recent one, you can look at RFC 6416.
>
> Stephan
>
> *From: *avt <avt-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Murray S. Kucherawy" 
> <superuser@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, June 18, 2021 at 08:50
> *To: *Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com>
> *Cc: *"avtcore-chairs@ietf.org" <avtcore-chairs@ietf.org>, 
> "draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org" 
> <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org" 
> <avt@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with DISCUSS)
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:10 PM Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com 
> <mailto:TBR@intopix.com>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > DISCUSS:
>     >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > This memo is defining a RTP payload for JPEG XS that is not
>     publicly available.
>     > This hampers the review of the memo, specially when it is
>     defining terminologies which ask me to look at the specifications.
>     >
>     > This concerns has also been raised by other ADs.
>     >
>     > Was this document made available during the work in the working
>     group?
>
>
>     This is a valid comment. We are unsure how to resolve this. ISO is
>     very strict about distribution of documents outside of the working
>     groups (i.e. it is not allowed at all).
>     The ISO 21122 standards were written by some of the same authors
>     as this RTP Payload spec (like myself and Thomas Richter), but the
>     ISO documents were (to my knowledge) not shared.
>
>     In order to resolve this issue, we need to know how IESG handled
>     this with other ISO standards that are not open? Or is 21122 the
>     first? Please advise.
>
> This is the first one like it in my time on the IESG, and I must admit 
> I didn't even think to check that this external reference was usable.  
> I'm glad Zaheduzzaman caught it.
>
> It might alleviate the problem to reduce this to an informative 
> reference, but it doesn't look to me like you could make the argument 
> that you don't need the ISO standards to implement this.  You're not 
> simply wrapping their protocol as-is; you need some header details, 
> for example.
>
> I've asked the RFC Editor if they know of any documents that proceeded 
> with closed references to ISO documents.  If there are any, I'll 
> review their processing history and see if I can find a path forward here.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt