Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process
"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Tue, 03 April 2007 13:32 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYj7Y-0003Fc-V6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:32:25 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYj7U-00037s-7M for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:32:24 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HYiyH-000A2X-1K for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:22:49 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7
Received: from [62.241.163.6] (helo=astro.systems.pipex.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>) id 1HYiyC-000A27-CF for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:22:47 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust253.tnt6.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.135.253]) by astro.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 97C02E000270; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:22:29 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <044a01c775ea$64cb7180$0601a8c0@pc6>
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Dave Ward <dward@cisco.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
References: <0e5101c771f5$bf431800$ea138182@your029b8cecfe> <035601c77542$b2159a40$0601a8c0@pc6> <03f301c7754d$9fbd1890$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
Subject: Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:42:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ba0ec39a747b7612d6a8ae66d1a873c
Adrian Yes, a subtle change but for me, better. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; "Dave Ward" <dward@cisco.com>; "Scott Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process > Thanks Tom, > > How about if the relevant paragraph read... > > 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. > > > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> > To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>; "Ross Callon" > <rcallon@juniper.net>; "Dave Ward" <dward@cisco.com>; "Scott Bradner" > <sob@harvard.edu> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:09 PM > Subject: Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process > > > > Adrian > > > > No doubt you are familiar with RFC4775, to which you refer, but I would > > suggest > > that it may not be of much assistance in this case. > > > > It is written in IETF-speak and, as such, may be impenetrable to those > > who are not already involved in the IETF, and, after spending much of the > > first > > eight > > pages telling people to find an AD/WG and submit an I-D, then mentions in > > passing that where a liaison exists, then that should be used; which is > > the case > > here. > > > > So I would suggest amending the reference to it, using it as an example of > > the > > IETF's wishes for other SDOs to engage but pointing out that, as it says, > > as > > long as we have a liaison, then that is the best place to engage; and as > > early > > in the process as possible. > > > > I think that the failures, such as they are, arise because of a tendency > > to > > produce the polished article, but too late, whereas a back of the fag > > packet a > > few months earlier would have been more productive. But this liaison may > > not be > > the right place to express more of that point of view than you are > > already > > doing. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > > Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>; "Ross Callon" > > <rcallon@juniper.net>; "Dave Ward" <dward@cisco.com>; "Scott Bradner" > > <sob@harvard.edu> > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:21 PM > > Subject: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process > > > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> One of the larger issues raised by a recent liaison from ITU-T Study > >> Group > >> 15 is on process and how we can continue to build a better relationship > >> between SG15 and CCAMP. > >> > >> Here is a draft response. > >> > >> Comments please by end of April 5th. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Adrian and Deborah > >> === > >> > >> To: ITU-T SG15 > >> From: IETF CCAMP > >> Cc: Yoichi Maeda, Stephen Trowbridge, Kam Lam, Scott Bradner, Ross > >> Callon, > >> Dave Ward > >> For Action > >> Deadline: 25th June 2007 > >> > >> Subject: Cooperative Relationship between ITU-T SG15 and CCAMP > >> > >> CCAMP 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. In order to crystallise this process, the IETF has recently > >> published RFC 4775 ("Procedures for Protocol Extensions and Variations") > >> and > >> 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, where 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 (COM 15-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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
- Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process Adrian Farrel
- Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process tom.petch
- Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process tom.petch
- Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process Adrian Farrel
- Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 on process tom.petch
- Re: Liaison I(-)D Re: Draft liaison to ITU SG15 o… Adrian Farrel