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