Network Working Group Lee Rafalow Internet Draft IBM Category: Best Current Practice Andrea Westerinen Cisco November 2001 Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work draft-rafalow-coordination-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) [1] is a membership-based standards organization with technology for, and expertise in, modeling systems and network-related management information. In the interests of promoting a common set of standards, from time to time the IETF and the DMTF have found and may continue to find opportunities to work together in developing overlapping standards. In managing the progress of such joint work activity, there is a need to share information and advance standards-track documents such that the documents are coordinated to reflect a common set of standards and that normative references can be established between the documents. This draft describes a process analogous to an optimized two-phase commit process (as used in transaction processing to keep databases synchronized). Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 1] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 1. Introduction Where possible, the networking industry benefits from common standards defined by the various industry groups (thereby avoiding duplicated or conflicting work). When the IETF and the DMTF collaborate to develop related standards, there is a need to share information and coordinate the promotion of standards-track documents. These coordinated documents reflect a common definition and understanding of the subject and allow normative references to be established between the documents. Because the IETF is an open standards organization, works in progress are generally available. Because the DMTF is a membership-based standards organization, specific approvals must be secured to enable open collaboration between the two organizations. As interdependent works-in-progress in the two organizations progress through their respective approval processes, there is a need to assure that the documents are consistent and, where needed, normative references meet the requirements of the IETF. This best practices draft is based on the experiences coordinating joint development work for RFC3060 [9], PCIM Extensions [10] and IPsec Policy [11]. 2. Open Sharing of Information IETF work-in-process documents are available to the public [3] [6]. DMTF work-in-process documents are not generally available to non- members. The DMTF does, however, permit sharing of work-in-progress information for the purposes of collaboration with other standards organizations. "If worked in Board-approved collaboration with another standards body, the proposal may also be posted to the membership of that standards body, using the guidelines of that standards body" [2]. Therefore, when an IETF Working Group collaborates with a DMTF Working Group, the chair of the DMTF working group MUST assure that the collaboration has been properly approved by the DMTF Board to permit the free flow of work-in-progress information between the groups. 3. Approval Processes To assure that documents are consistent and that normative references meet IETF requirements [3], the standards-track documents from the two organizations must have equivalent levels of stability and approval. The approval processes for the two organizations are different in several respects; two of these differences are important for this discussion. They differ in the number of maturity levels (e.g., Proposed Standard, etc.) and they differ in the archival nature of those maturity levels. Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 2] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 3.1. IETF Standards Process The relevant portions of the IETF standards process are defined in "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3" [3] and "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" [6]. They require open deliberation and decision-making for standards-track documents and specify that works- in-progress advance from Working Group Last-Call, to IESG Last-Call and to the RFC Editor for publication. A standards-track document is a permanent part of the IETF archival record when it reaches Proposed Standard. Further, IETF standards- track technical specifications that have reached Proposed Standard are available to be implemented. Although such a specification may be updated or obsoleted, proposed standards are frequently and widely used in production networks. 3.2. DMTF Standards Process The relevant portions of the DMTF standards process are defined in the DMTF "Release Process" [2]. As previously discussed, the process permits the sharing of information and deliberation on issues related to this information. However, the decision-making process is open only to DMTF members. The DMTF approval process is similar to the IETF's, in that a standards-track document goes through a working group approval that is a process of achieving consensus, but is formally a voting process within the working group. Once approved by a working group, a standards-track document is reviewed by the Technical Committee (a technical steering committee) and by member companies to become a Preliminary Standard. The DMTF Board of Directors then approves a Preliminary Standard to be made available to the general public, at which time implementation experience is encouraged. When the Technical Committee (with the advice of the relevant working groups) believes the standard is ready for general use, the Technical Committee and the Board of Directors may approve it as a Final Standard. Only the final maturity level, Final Standard, is a permanent part of the DMTF archival record. Further, although the DMTF Preliminary Standard level of document maturity is similar in purpose to the IETF Proposed Standard in that it is intended for developing implementation experience, Preliminary Standards are not part of the DMTF archival record. They can be used in production environments, although implementations are encouraged to move to Final Standards when they become available. A Preliminary Standard may differ from a Final Standard if the implementation experiences dictate changes to the Preliminary document. Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 3] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 3.3. Synchronizing Documents Synchronization of the IETF and DMTF standards-track documents occurs when coordinated specifications reach certain levels of maturity in their respective standards organizations. These levels are: - Consensus and approval of the Working Groups - DMTF Preliminary Standard and IETF Proposed Standard - DMTF Final Standard and RFC Editor Release of the RFC Specifications MUST be synchronized if they are interdependent in that they document aspects of the same standard or otherwise require normative references to one another. Specifications SHOULD be synchronized if they document related standards or there is a normative reference in one specification to a specification of the other standards organization. The synchronization process is an optimized two-phase commit process in which related documents are both stabilized and then approved. The stabilization process occurs as the works-in-progress progress through their respective approval processes. DMTF Process IETF Process 1. Decision to coordinate and exchange info 2. Stabilize <-----------------------> Stabilize 3. Prelim ------------------------> 4. <------------------------ Proposed 5. Final ------------------------> RFC Release Figure 1. Two-Phase Commit Metaphor The figure above outlines the synchronization steps. 1. Based on industry needs and the intent of the IETF and DMTF working groups, a decision is made to coordinate standards development. The DMTF working group chair secures the proper approval to permit the open exchange of information. 2. The IETF and DMTF Working Groups collaborate on the overlap of the two organizations' work-in-progress standards-track documents and reach consensus on the issues. These efforts are may be coordinated by the IETF and DMTF Working Group chairs or by designees such as the document editors. Information is exchanged as needed using both Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 4] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 the DMTF and IETF mail lists, joint meetings may be held to coordinate development activities, and representatives may present the opinions and consensus of the alternate groups. Ultimately, both the IETF and the DMTF working groups will reach consensus and have stable specifications for approval. 3. The first phase of the formal synchronization is begun with the DMTF approval process. The related DMTF specifications are submitted as Preliminary Standards. This is analogous to a "prepare to commit" 4. Once the DMTF document is approved and publicly available on the DMTF web site as a Preliminary Standard, the IETF working group last call process commences. At this point, the related specifications are still open to change and any recycling of the specification in either standards organization MAY cause the stabilization process to be restarted. When the IETF specifications exit working group last call, IESG last call and are approved by the IESG, the documents are held by the RFC Editor waiting for external normative references to be resolved. This step is analogous to both the "prepared" and "commit request" steps in a two-phase commit. 5. The last phase of the coordinated approval process consists of the DMTF approving those Preliminary Standards that are coordinated with the documents held by the RFC Editor. These DMTF standards would then be released as Final Standards, after which the RFC Editor releases the RFCs with the resolution of the normative references. This is analogous to the final "committed" signal in an optimized two-phase commit process. The normal course of collaboration is to maintain the synchronization in approval levels. If, for some reason, the related specifications fail to get through the approval process of one organization or the other, the working groups and steering committees SHOULD either: 1. hold the related documents at their current levels of approval until identified problems can be worked out by the working groups; 2. move the related documents back to an earlier approval state (e.g., preliminary in the DMTF and last call in the IETF) and apply appropriate changes before progressing again; or 3. rollback the approval state and restart the approval process. It should be noted that the related standards-track coordination is severable. Although the motivation of producing common industry standards SHOULD NOT be abandoned lightly, the working groups and steering committees of one or both of the organizations MAY conclude that further collaboration is no longer necessary and proceed with standards efforts independently. Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 5] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 4. Security Considerations Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 5. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 6. References [1] Distributed Management Task Force web site, http://www.dmtf.org/ [2] DMTF "Release Process", DSP0129, September 27, 2001 [3] Bradner, S., Editor, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [5] Hovey, R., and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996. [6] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998 [7] "Considerations for Internet Drafts", http://www.ietf.org/ID- nits.html [8] "Recent and Proposed RFC Editorial Policy Changes", http://www.rfc- editor.org/policy.html Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 6] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 [9] Moore, B., and E. Ellesson, J. Strassner, A. Westerinen "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001. [10] Moore, B., Rafalow, L., Ramberg, Y., Snir, Y., Westerinen, A., Chadha, R., Brunner, M., Cohen, R. and Strassner, J., "Policy Core Information Model Extensions", draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-05.txt, October 2001 Internet Draft work in progress [11] Jason, J., Rafalow, L., and Vyncke, E., "IPsec Configuration Policy Model", draft-ietf-ipsp-config-policy-model-04.txt, November 2001, Internet Draft work in progress 7. Authors' Addresses Lee Rafalow IBM Corporation, BRQA/502 3039 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: +1 919-254-4455 Fax: +1 919-254-6243 E-mail: rafalow@watson.ibm.com Andrea Westerinen Cisco Systems Building 20 725 Alder Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: +1-408-853-8294 Fax: +1-408-527-6351 E-mail: andreaw@cisco.com 8. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 7] Internet Draft Coordinating IETF and DMTF Joint Work November 2001 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Rafalow, Westerinen Expires: April 2002 [Page 8]