Network Working Group S. Trowbridge Internet-Draft Lucent Technologies Expires: July 21, 2005 S. Bradner Harvard University F. Baker Cisco Systems January 18, 2005 Procedures for handling liaison statements to and from the IETF draft-baker-liaison-statements-04 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming liaison statements from other standards development organizations (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and industry fora. This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international standards community. The IETF expects that liaison statements might come from a variety of organizations, and it may choose to respond to many of those. The IETF is only obligated to respond if there is an agreed liaison relationship, however. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Liaison Statements and their handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Liaison Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1 Contents of a Liaison Statement . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1.1 Envelope Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1.1.1 From: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1.1.2 To: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.1.3 Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.1.4 Response Contact: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.1.5 Technical Contact: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.1.6 Purpose: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.1.7 Deadline: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1.2 Liaison Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1.2.1 Body: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1.2.2 Attachments: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Addressee Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Lifetime of a Liaison Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Tools for handling liaison statements . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Liaison Statements from other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora to IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.1 Liaison Statement Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.2 Mechanism for displaying Liaison Statements . . . . . 10 3.2 Communicating IETF information to other SDOs, consortia, and fora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1 Spontaneously generating Liaison Statements to other organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1.1 Transmitting IETF documents to other organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.1.2 Requests for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.1.3 Requesting comments on Work in Progress . . . . . 11 3.2.1.4 Requests for Other Actions (besides comments on IETF drafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.2 Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements . . . . . . 12 3.2.2.1 Responding to Requests for Information . . . . . . 12 Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 3.2.2.2 Responding to Requests for Comments . . . . . . . 12 3.2.2.3 Responding to Request for Action . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.2.4 Generating Liaison Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. Implementation Road map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.1 Phase I: Initial implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.1.1 Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.1.2 Actions on submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. Phase II: Additional instrumentation and responses to usage experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 23 Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 1. Introduction This document describes the procedure for generating and handling liaison statements between the IETF and other SDOs, so that IETF can effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international standards community. These liaison statements are primarily exchanged between IETF and organizations with whom the IAB has created a liaison relationship (see [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt]), although other organizations are not precluded. The procedures described in this document encompass all liaisons statements received from SDOs, whether or not a formal liaison arrangement is in place between the SDO and the IETF. Where no formal liaison arrangement is in place the IETF is not obligated to respond to the liaison statement. The implementation of the procedure and supporting tools is occurring in a minimum of three phases. The initial phase has been the development of a prototype (in the best tradition of "rough consensus and running code"), by Sunny Lee of Foretec, in parallel with the development of this specification. The second phase is the conversion of that prototype to an operational tool. This operational tool lacks an automated tracking tool; rather, the liaison manager implements that in his or her own way. The third phase will include that tracking tool. The specific supporting tools described in this document (and their functionality) are one possible way of providing automated support for the processes described in this document. Because specific tools and their functionality will change over time, the descriptions in this document are to be considered examples only and are not a normative part of this specification. Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 2. Liaison Statements and their handling Let us first define what a liaison statement is (and is not), and set reasonable expectations. The expectations set forth in this section are normative for a liaison statement sent by any Standards Development Organization to the IETF. 2.1 Definitions For purposes of clarity, we use the following definitions: Addressee: The working group(s) or other party(s) in the IETF to whom a liaison statement is addressed. Assignee: The person responsible to act on a liaison statement, initially either the person to whom it was addressed or the chair of the group to which it was addressed. The task may be reassigned to another person in the same or a different group as appropriate. Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure that communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as defined by sections 2.2 and 3 in [I-D.iab-liaison-mgt] Liaison statement: A letter as described in this document, exchanged between organizations. 2.2 Liaison Statements A Liaison Statement is a business letter sent by one standards organization to another. These organizations may be at any level (working group, area, etc); generally, the sender and receiver are peer organizations. A liaison statement may have any purpose, but generally the purpose is to solicit information, make a comment or request an action. 2.2.1 Contents of a Liaison Statement Liaison statements may be very formal or quite informal, depending on the rules of the body generating them. Any liaison statement, however, will always contain certain information, much as an business letter does. This information will include the following: 2.2.1.1 Envelope Information The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement. 2.2.1.1.1 From: The statement will indicate what body it is from; it may be from, for example, an IETF working group or area, an ITU-T Study Group, Working Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 Party, or Question, etc. In this document, this body is the "sender". 2.2.1.1.2 To: The statement will indicate what body it is to. In this document, this body is the "addressee". 2.2.1.1.3 Title: The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of its context and content. 2.2.1.1.4 Response Contact: The sender will indicate the electronic mail address that any response should be sent to. 2.2.1.1.5 Technical Contact: The sender will indicate one or more electronic mail addresses (persons or lists) that may be contacted for clarification of the liaison statement. 2.2.1.1.6 Purpose: While others are possible, a liaison statement generally has one of three purposes, and will clearly state its purpose using one of these labels: For Information: The liaison statement is to inform the addressee of something, and expects no response. For Comment: The liaison statement requests commentary from the addressee, usually within a stated time frame. For Action: The liaison statement requests that the addressee do something on the sender's behalf, usually within a stated time frame. In Response: The liaison statement includes a response to a liaison statement from the peer organization on one or more of its documents, and expects no further response. 2.2.1.1.7 Deadline: Liaison Statements that request comment or action will indicate when the comment or action is required. If the addressee cannot accomplish the request within the stated period, courtesy calls for a response offering a more doable deadline or an alternative course of action. Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 2.2.1.2 Liaison Content The following fields are the substance of the liaison statement. IETF participants use a wide variety of systems, meaning that document formats that are not universally readable are problematic. As a result, documents enclosed with the body or attachments should be in PDF, W3C HTML (without proprietary extensions), or ASCII text format. If they were originally in a proprietary format, such as Microsoft Word, that file may also be sent, but should be accompanied by a generally readable file. 2.2.1.2.1 Body: As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand. 2.2.1.2.2 Attachments: Attachments, if enclosed, may be in the form of documents sent with the liaison statement or may be URLs to similar documents including Internet Drafts. 2.3 Addressee Responsibilities The responsibilities of the addressee of a liaison statement are the same as the responsibilities of any business letter. A liaison statement calls for appropriate consideration of its contents, and if a reply is requested and an appropriate relationship exists, a courteous authoritative reply within the expected time frame. The reply may be that the information was useful, that it was not useful, that the requested action has been accomplished, it will be accomplished by a specified date, it will not be done for a specific reason, an answer to a question posed, or any other appropriate reply. A liaison statement, like any other temporary document, must be considered in terms of its relevance, importance, and its urgency. One hopes that a liaison statement will be sent to the right organization, but this cannot be assured; an SDO might send a liaison statement to a specific IETF area whose area director deems is better handled by one of the working groups, or it might be sent to one working group when it should have gone to another. If a liaison statement arrives which appears misdirected, the assignee should promptly ask the liaison manager to redirect it appropriately. In some cases, a liaison statement may require consideration by multiple groups within the IETF; in such cases, one assignee takes the lead and responsibility for developing a response. Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 Liaison Statements are always important to the body that sent them. Having arrived at the appropriate body, the liaison statement may be more or less important to the addressee depending on the contents of the liaison statement and the expertise of the sender. If the liaison statement seeks to influence the direction of a working group's development, it should get the same consideration that any temporary document receives. The working group chair may request the sender's contacts to make their case to the IETF working group in the same manner and on the same basis that an internet draft author makes his case. The urgency of a liaison statement is usually reflected in its deadline. A liaison statement for informational purposes may have no deadline; in such a case, a courteous "thank you" liaison statement is called for, to inform the sender that the liaison statement was received, after which the working group may inform itself of the contents and close the document. A liaison statement specifying a deadline, however, gives the addressee a finite opportunity to influence the activity of another body; if it fails to react in a timely fashion, it may miss this opportunity. 2.4 Lifetime of a Liaison Statement A liaison statement is a temporary document, much like an internet draft. The normal expectation, if it affects IETF output, is that the resulting RFC will contain any relevant information that remains pertinent. Retaining liaison statements that have been completely dealt with mostly serves to hide new ones and create the appearance of not dealing with them. However, unlike an internet draft, liaison statements are often the only record the IETF has of the communication with the peer SDO. As such, some liaison statements are referred to for relatively long periods of time. As a result, the IETF will archive liaison statements that have been fully dealt with, along with any attachments that may have been relevant, but do so in a manner obviously distinct from current liaison statements. Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 3. Tools for handling liaison statements Some tools have been developed for the IETF. Development is expected to continue. This section describes the basic tool and its intended use. 3.1 Liaison Statements from other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora to IETF The process of handling a liaison statement is a little heavier than the handling of a business letter, however, because it is important to a relationship with another SDO established by the IAB. To manage liaison statements, the IETF will offer three electronically accessible facilities: a form for submission of liaison statements, a mechanism organizing their contents and making them accessible, and a tracking system. Initially, the tracking system will be a manual procedure used by the liaison manager; in the future, this should be automated. 3.1.1 Liaison Statement Submission The IETF Secretariat will provide an electronic method for submission of liaison statements. The liaison statement submission mechanism is a form that requests the information listed in Section 2.2.1 from the user. Submission of that information results in the following actions: o creation of a display mechanism containing the envelope data in Section 2.2.1.1 and URLs pointing to the items from Section 2.2.1.2, an indication of whether the liaison statement has been replied to, and if so, on what date, o the addition of a URL to the "outstanding liaison statements" summary mechanism, o when an automated tracking system has been implemented, a tickler/status entry in the tracking system, assigned to the relevant chair or AD, o an email to the assignee copying * the liaison statement's technical contacts * The supervisor of the assignee (if it is to a working group, the relevant Area Directors; if to an AD, the IETF Chair), * The liaison manager for the sending SDO, * an alias associated with the assignee (WG/BOF or other open mailing list, area directorate, IESG, IAB, etc.) This email should contain the URL to the liaison statement mechanism, text indicating that the liaison statement has arrived, requests appropriate consideration, and if a deadline is specified, a reply by the deadline. Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 The assignee has the capability of interacting with the liaison manager and (once implemented) the tracking system, including replying, changing dates, reassignment, closing the liaison statement process, etc. The liaison manager or tracking system's "tickle" function periodically reminds the assignee by email that the liaison statement has not yet been closed. This tickle email copies all of the above except the associated mailing alias. 3.1.2 Mechanism for displaying Liaison Statements The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement activity. This consists of o A submission mechanism, o A status/management mechanism for each active or recently closed liaison statement, and zero or more associated files. The status/management mechanism contains a simple frame, showing the title of the liaison statement, the URL for its mechanism, and the organizations it is from and to. The display for liaison statement itself contains o the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1), o direct content (Section 2.2.1), o URLs for the various associated files o current status of the liaison statement: who it is assigned to, its due date, and its status, o pointer to the liaison manager and tracking system entry for the liaison statement. o reply-generation mechanism (see Section 3.2.2.4) 3.2 Communicating IETF information to other SDOs, consortia, and fora This includes liaison statements sent in reply to liaison statements sent by other bodies, and liaison statements being originated by the IETF. 3.2.1 Spontaneously generating Liaison Statements to other organizations Liaison Statements can be generated at a Working Group, Area, or IETF level to another organization. The respective (co)chair(s) are responsible for judging the degree of consensus for sending the particular liaison statement and what the content should be. The amount of consensus required to send a liaison statement varies greatly depending on its content. This section gives some rough guidance about how much consensus should be sought before sending a Trowbridge, et al. Expires July 21, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Handling of Liaison Statements January 2005 liaison statement to another organization. 3.2.1.1 Transmitting IETF documents to other organizations The simplest case of approving sending of a liaison statement from IETF is where the information that is being transmitted consists of an IETF document that has some level of agreement within the IETF. The process that the document has already gone through to achieve its current status assures the necessary level of consensus. Any Standards Track RFC (Draft Standard, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, BCP), and any working group document expected to be placed on the standards track, may be transmitted without concern. Informational documents may also be exchanged readily when they represent a working group position or consensus, such as a requirements or archit