As per Relevance of the word collaboration, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group R.
Request for Comments: 2436 Nortel
Category: Informational S.
Harvard
G.
Nortel
October 1998
Collaboration between ISOC/IETF and ITU-
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved
This document describes the collaboration process between the ITU-
and ISOC/IETF. The process was documented by ITU-T at its
(Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group) meeting
September 1998. All participants of this meeting (including
Group chairmen and the ISOC Vice President for Standards) assisted
the creation of this document. Subsequently, it was sent to
ITU-T Study Groups and ISOC/IETF to ensure that everyone was aware
the process. Feedback is requested by the next meeting of TSAG
April 1999. This document is identical to the document produced
TSAG
Please send any comments on this document to ISOC at poised@tis.
and for information to the ITU-T TSAG group at tsagco-op@itu.
ISOC/IETF and ITU-T
1
This Liaison is sent to all ITU-T Study Groups to encourage and
in the understanding of collaboration on standards
between the ITU-T and the Internet Society (ISOC) /
Engineering Task Force (IETF). Feedback to TSAG is encouraged
its next meeting in April 1999.
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
2
The telecommunication industry is faced with an explosion in
of the Internet and other IP (Internet Protocol) based networks
Operators, manufacturers and software/application providers alike
reconsidering their business directions and Standards
Organizations and Forums and Consortia are facing an
challenge to address this situation. These challenges
considered by TSAG at its meeting in Geneva, 7-11 September 1998,
where it recognized that although the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF are
collaborating in a number of areas, this collaboration must
strengthened within the context of changes in work emphasis
direction within the ITU-T on studies related to IP based networks
For example, many Study Groups (e.g., 7, 8 & 16) already
several the aspects of IP based networks. Further, new IP
work activities are starting in other Study Groups (e.g., 4, 11 &
13). There are many potential areas of interest to ITU-T
Groups in the IP area that should be investigated (e.g., signaling
routing, security, numbering & addressing, integrated management
performance, IP - telecom interworking, access). Since many of
areas are also being investigated by the IETF, there is a
for close collaboration
Recommendations A.4, A.5 and A.6 already document the process
working with other organizations and their documents. Since
are no specific guidelines on the process of collaboration with
IETF, this liaison is meant to provide that information. The
level of cooperation between the ITU-T and the IETF should be
upon to ensure that the competence and experience of
organization is brought to bear in the most effective manner and
collaboration with the other
3 Guidance on
TSAG has been made aware of several instances of existing
collaboration between the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF. This section
on this existing process and details some of the more
guidance points that Study Groups should be aware of in
collaboration with ISOC/IETF
3.1 How to interact on ITU-T or IETF work items
Study Groups that have identified work topics that are
related should evaluate the relationship with topics defined in
IETF. Current IETF Working Groups and their charters (
definition of the scope of work) are listed in the IETF archives (
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
section 3.5). A Study Group may decide that development of
Recommendation on a particular topic may benefit from
with the IETF
The Study Group should identify this collaboration in its work
(specifically in that of each Question involved), describing the
of the collaboration and its expected outcome. It is
that an IETF Working Group would also evaluate and identify areas
relationship with the ITU-T and document the collaboration with
ITU-T Study Group in its charter
The following sections outline a process that can be used to
each group to learn about the others new work items
3.1.1 How the ITU-T learns about existing IETF work
The responsibility is on individual Study Groups to review
current IETF Working Groups to determine if there are any topics
mutual interest. Should a Study Group believe that there is
opportunity for collaboration on a topic of mutual interest it
contact both the IETF Working Group Chair and the Area
responsible
3.1.2 How the ITU-T learns about proposed new IETF work
The IETF maintains a mailing list for the distribution and
of proposed new Working Group charters amongst the management team
To add or change a subscription to this list, send a message
iesg-secretary@ietf.org indicating who you are and that you
like to subscribe to the New Work mailing list. Details on the
process will be emailed to each subscriber
It is recommended that each Study Group chairman (or a delegate
subscribe to this list and monitor the new work items for
overlap or interest to their Study Group. It is expected that
mailing list will see one or two messages per month. Chairmen
identify their comments on these charters by responding to the
mailing list at iesg@ietf.org clearly indicating their ITU-T
and the nature of their concern. It should be noted that the
turnaround time for new Working Group charters is one week. As
result, the mailing list should be consistently monitored
3.1.3 How the IETF learns about ITU-T work
An initial list of Internet related topics in ITU-T Study
based on the situation as of 11 September is being provided to
Vice President of Standards for ISOC for distribution to
appropriate IETF interested individuals and will be copied to
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
ITU-T Study Group Chairmen. The intention is for Study Groups
forward updates to the Vice President of Standards for ISOC as
occur
It is expected that any IETF Working Group interest with the
being covered by the ITU-T will be forwarded to individual
Group Chairmen (or the lead Study Group Chairman) by the
President of Standards for ISOC
3.2
ISOC, including its standards body IETF, have been admitted by
ITU Council to participate in the work of the ITU-T. As a result
ISOC delegates are therefore afforded equivalent rights to those
other ITU-T Study Group participants (see 3.2.1). Conversely, ITU-
delegates may participate in the work of the IETF as individuals
be recognized as ITU-T delegates (see 3.2.2). To
collaboration it is useful to facilitate communication between
organizations as further described below
3.2.1 IETF Recognition at ITU-
Participants from the IETF may participate in ITU-T meetings as
delegates if the appropriate IETF Working Group (or area)
approved their attendance. This approval will be communicated to
TSB in the form of a registration for a particular ITU-T meeting
the Vice President of Standards for ISOC
3.2.2 ITU-T Recognition at ISOC/
ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members
attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking
behalf of the Study Group (or a particular Rapporteur Group).
Study Group Chairman communicates the ITU-T list of delegates
email to the Vice President of Standards for ISOC and also to
Study Group. The email address of the Vice President of
for ISOC is vp-standards@isoc.org
3.2.3 Communication
To foster ongoing communication between the ITU-T and ISOC/IETF,
is important to identify and establish contact points within ITU-
Study Groups for specific IETF topics of mutual interest. It
beneficial to identify these contact points early and in some
the contact point identified by each organization may be the
individual. It is responsibility of a Study Group to establish
contact points with the IETF and maintain the list on its web page
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
An example of communication contacts that is suggested to
Groups has both a high level and a working level
1. ITU-T Study Group Chairman and IETF Area
An IETF Area Director is the individual responsible for
a major focus of activity with a scope similar to that of an ITU-
Study Group Chairman. These positions are both relatively long
term (of several years) and offer the stability of contact
between the two organizations for a given topic
2. ITU-T Rapporteur and IETF Working Group
An IETF Working Group Chair is an individual who is assigned
lead the work on a specific task within one particular area with
scope similar to that of an ITU-T Rapporteur. These positions
working positions (of a year or more) that typically end when
work on a specific topic ends. Collaboration here is
beneficial to ensure the actual work gets done. Note that
current IETF Area Directors and Working Group chairs can be
in the IETF Working Group charters. The current ITU-T Study
chairmen and Rapporteurs are listed on the ITU-T web page
Both the ITU-T and IETF may assign their contact point function(s)
other individuals than those suggested as it deems appropriate
3.2.4
Informal communication between contact points and experts of
organizations is encouraged. However, note that formal
from an ITU-T Study Group, Working Party or Rapporteur to
associated IETF contact point must be explicitly approved
identified as coming from the Study Group, Working Party
Rapporteur Group, respectively. Conversely, formal
from an IETF Working Group or Area Director must also be
approved and identified before forwarding to any ITU-T contact
Formal communication is intended to allow the sharing of
between the IETF and the ITU-T outside of actual documents (
described in 3.3). This would cover such things as comments
documents and requests for input. The approved communication
simply emailed from one body contact to another (the
mailing lists, as described in 3.2.5 may be copied).
3.2.5 Mailing
All IETF Working Groups and all ITU-T Study Group Questions
associated mailing lists
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
In the IETF, the mailing list is the primary vehicle for
and decision making. It is recommended the ITU-T experts
in particular IETF working group topics subscribe to and
in these lists. The IETF Working Group mailing list subscription
archive information are noted in each Working Group's charter. In
ITU-T, the TSB has set up formal mailing lists for Questions,
Parties and other topics within Study Groups (more detail can
found on the ITU website.). These mailing lists are typically
for discussion of ITU-T contributions. Note that
subscribers to this list must be affiliated with an ITU-T member (
this time, there is no blanket inclusion of all IETF participants
members, however, as a member ISOC may designate representatives
subscribe). Alternatively, ITU-T members operate personal
lists on various topics with no restrictions on membership (e.g.,
IETF participants are welcome).
3.3 Document
During the course of ITU-T and IETF collaboration it is important
share working drafts and documents among the technical
groups. Initial proposed concepts and specifications typically
be circulated by email (often just repeating the concept and
including the details of the specification) on both the IETF
ITU-T mailing lists. In addition, working texts (or URLs) of
Recommendations or RFCs (Internet Drafts) may also be sent
the organizations as described below
3.3.1 IETF to ITU-
IETF documents (e.g., Internet Drafts) can be submitted to a
Group as a Contribution from ISOC. In order to ensure that the
has properly authorized this, the IETF Working Group must agree
the specific drafts are of mutual interest and that there is
benefit in forwarding them to the ITU-T for review, comment
potential use. Once agreed, the Vice President Standards for
would review the Working Group request and give approval.
contributions would then be forwarded (with the noted approval)
the TSB for circulation as a Study Group Contribution
3.3.2 ITU-T to
A Study Group may send texts of draft new Recommendations to the
as contributions in the form of Internet Drafts. Internet Drafts
IETF temporary documents that expire six months after
published. The Study Group must decide that there is a benefit
forwarding them to the IETF for review, comment and potential use
Terms of reference for Rapporteur Group meetings may
Rapporteur Groups to send working documents, in the form of
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
Drafts, to the IETF. In both cases, the document editor would
instructed to prepare the contribution in Internet Draft format (
ASCII and optionally postscript format as per RFC 2223) and submit
to the Internet Draft editor (email: internet-drafts@ietf.org).
Alternatively, the Study Group or Rapporteur Group could agree
post the document on a web site and merely document its
with a short Internet Draft that contains a summary and the
URL
Both the Rapporteur and the Document Editor should be identified
contacts in the contribution. The contribution must also
indicate that the Internet Draft is a working document of
particular ITU-T Study Group
3.3.3 ITU-T &
It is envisaged that the processes of 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 will often
used simultaneously by both an IETF Working Group and an ITU-T
Group to collaborate on a topic of mutual interest. It is
envisaged that the outcome of the collaboration will be
documentation in full by one body and its referencing by the
(see section 3.4 for details). That is, common or joint text
discouraged because of the current differences in approval,
and stability of approved documents for publication by each body
3.4 Simple cross
ITU-T Recommendation A.5, specifically its Annex A and
application guidelines attached, describes the process
referencing IETF RFCs in ITU-T Recommendations. IETF RFC 2026,
specifically section 7.1.1, describes the process for
other open standards (like ITU-T Recommendations) in IETF RFCs
3.5 Additional
Several URLs to IETF procedures are provided here for information
RFC2223 - Instructions to RFC Authors, October 1997
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2223.
RFC2026 - The Internet Standards Process Revision 3, October 1996
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.
RFC2418 - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,
1998 ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2418.
Current list and status of all IETF RFCs ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in
notes/rfc-index.
Current list and description of all IETF Internet Drafts
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
Current list of IETF Working Groups and their Charters: (
Area Directors and Chair contacts, Mailing list information, etc.)
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.
Current ITU-T information can be found on the ITU website: (
contacts, organization, Recommendations for purchase, mailing
info, etc.) http://www.itu.
4.
The process was documented by ITU-T at its TSAG (
Standardization Advisory Group) meeting in September 1998.
participants of this meeting (including Study Group chairmen and
ISOC Vice President for Standards) assisted in the creation of
document. Subsequently, it was sent to all ITU-T Study Groups
ISOC/IETF to ensure that everyone was aware of the process.
is requested by the next meeting of TSAG in April 1999.
5. Security
This type of non-protocol document does not directly effect
security of the Internet
6. Authors'
ITU-T Contact
R. F.
Nortel
P.O. Box 3511, Station
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H
Phone: +1-613-828-0902
Fax: +1-613-828-9408
EMail: rfbrett@nortel.
ISOC Contact
Scott O.
Harvard
Holyoke Center, Room 876
1350 Mass. Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
Editor
Glenn W.
Nortel
P.O. Box 3511, Station
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H
Phone: +1-613-763-7582
Fax: +1-613-763-4461
EMail: Glenn.Parsons@Nortel.
7.
[A.4] ITU-T Recommendation A.4 - Communication process
ITU-T and forums and consortia, October 1996.
[A.5] ITU-T Recommendation A.5 - Generic procedures for
references to documents to other organizations in ITU-
Recommendations, January 1998.
[A.6] ITU-T Recommendation A.6 - Cooperation and exchange
information between ITU-T and national and
standards development organizations, September 1998.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
8. Full ITU Copyright
Copyright (C) ITU (1998). All Rights Reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
microfilm, without permission in writing from the ITU
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
9. Annex
APPLICATION GUIDELINES ON REFERENCING DOCUMENTS FROM
PART I - Developed by TSAG at its January 1998
The following guidelines should be used in conjunction with
relevant provisions of Recommendations A.3, A.4, A.5 and A.23.
1. Ownership/Change
- When considering using material from other organizations it
preferable to only include references to other standards
rather than incorporate text from a standard in the body of
Recommendation. Exceptionally, full text incorporation
necessary rather than a reference where Recommendations
regulatory connotations are concerned
- Reference should be made to the particular issue of a standard
In this way the ITU-T is in control of what is
referenced even if the source organization updates
standard
- References to standards from other organizations should only
made where those organizations continue to provide
access to the version referenced even when updated versions
issued
- When a draft Recommendation is being prepared and the
is to reference a standard from another organization,
organization should be advised by the TSB of the ITU-T'
intention and should be requested to notify the ITU-T of
impending changes to the standard and of any reissues of
standard. (This request may be part of the
described in Recommendation A.5, section 2.4.) It is
the responsibility of the Study Group to regularly review
Recommendations and check if the references are correct and
necessary to reissue the Recommendation with revised
(and where necessary make changes in the body of
Recommendation where the reference is made.).
- Should an organization intend to remove completely an
version of a standard the ITU-T should be advised so that
can either incorporate the text in the Recommendation or
the reference to a later version
2.
- The objective is to have referenced standards freely
via the Web so that people purchasing a Recommendation may
access to the references. A warning should be given
purchasers of ITU-T Recommendations that they may have
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
additionally purchase the referenced standards. This could
done by including a note to such effect in the introduction
Recommendations where references are included
- When developing a Recommendation where consideration is
given to using references to other standards the Study
should investigate with the TSB whether the referenced
will be available free of charge or if a payment will
required. This should be taken into account by the Study
as it may influence the decision to use the reference
3.
- In principle, if the IPR policy of the organization owning
referenced standard is more stringent than that of the ITU-
then there should not be any IPR problems with including
reference. However, this may not be the case with
organizations. Further guidelines are being prepared by
Director of the TSB
4.
- The approval procedures in Resolution 1 have to be followed
Recommendations containing references (wholly or in part)
standards from other bodies even in the case where
Recommendation is just a reference to another standard
PART II - Developed by TSAG at its September 1998
The following guidelines should be used in conjunction
Recommendation A.5.
1. Nested
Issue: RFCs often contain references to related RFCs and ITU-
Recommendations which, in turn, may contain references to
RFCs and Recommendations. It is unclear how to handle these
references in the context of A.5.
Guideline: Each time an RFC is referenced within an ITU-
Recommendation, all references within that RFC should be listed
the report documenting the decision of the Study Group. No
treatment is necessary, although the Study Group may wish
investigate those references further on a case-by-case basis.
same guidelines apply when referencing the documents of
organizations
2. Subsequent Referencing of the Same
Issue: It is possible that the same RFC may be considered
referencing in multiple Recommendations. It is unclear
evaluation is required in subsequent references
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
Guideline: The justification for referencing the same document
different Recommendations is likely to be different. Consequently
it is important that separate evaluations be made each time
document is referenced. However, only items 1 - 8 in Appendix
(and Annex A) of Recommendation A.5 need to be completed if
referenced organization has already been qualified per Section 3
of A.5. Since items 9 and 10 are dependent on the organization
not on the document, they need to be completed only the first
a document from that organization is being considered
referencing and only if such information has not been
already
3. Availability of Referenced
Issue: Paragraph 2.2.10 of A.5 requires that the
Study Group member provide a full copy of the existing document
It is unclear whether paper copies are mandatory or
electronic availability, for example, on a Web site,
sufficient
Guideline: The objective is to have referenced documents
via the Web at no cost so that the Study Group members may
with their evaluation. Accordingly, if a referenced document
available in this manner, it is sufficient for the
member to provide its exact location on the Web. On the
hand, if the document is not available in this manner, a full
must be provided (in electronic format if permissible by
referenced organization, otherwise in paper format).
4. Referencing of IETF
Issue: It is unclear whether or not it is appropriate to
RFCs that are not on the standards track (the "Informational"
"Experimental" RFCs) or those that are at the first level
standardization (the "Proposed Standard" RFCs).
Guideline: Some outputs of organizations may not be
for normative referencing, others may not be appropriate for
referencing, normative or informative. In the case of the IETF,
is not appropriate to make any references to "Internet Drafts"
to "Historic" RFCs as noted in A.5. In addition, it is
appropriate to make normative references to RFCs that
considered "Informational" or "Experimental". References to
that have the status of "Proposed Standards" should be made
caution and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
such standards are considered immature in the sense that they
change if problems are found in real implementations or if
solutions are identified
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
5. IETF Address
The electronic address of the IETF archives has changed
Accordingly the addresses in items 4 and 9.8 of Annex A should
changed, respectively to
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html - for the IPR
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html - for the RFC
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2436 ISOC/IETF - ITU-T Collaboration October 1998
Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Brett, et. al. Informational [Page 14]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
