Re: ASON RSVP-TE draft to WG doc

[Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

Adrian,
On 12/1/2003 1:45 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
(snip)
> But, I agree with you that the requirements belong to ITU-T. That is why the current
> requirements draft is only an attempt to restate the requirements in terms of GMPLS
> signaling and in terms and fortmat that are easy for IETF-heads to parse.
Hard as it is to believe, I have met smart people in all kinds of places -
not just ITU-T. I have met plenty of folks in IETF who are perfectly
capable of comprehending ITU-T architecture and terminology. I have even
met people with computers so powerful that they can manage to read a
document that isn't in ASCII with stick figure diagrams :-)

But seriously, if the intent of the current requirements draft
(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt) is to present the ITU-T requirements
in terms and format that is easier for IETF-heads to parse, it surely seems
that the next step would be to send this in a liaison statement to ITU-T
to make sure that the requirements are captured correctly, rather than
moving along to a solution document in
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt that seems to prejudge that
there is some mistake in the existing solution.

> I'm not sure how many individuals have been actively involved in both processes. This is
> clearly something from which both bodies would benefit. I know and understand how
> individuals can become involved in the IETF process. How can individuals participate in
> the ITU-T process?
Actually quite a few of us have been involved both places.

For those who haven't been actively involved on the ITU-T side, there are
about 5 avenues to participate (probably more, but these are from the
top of my head):
ITU-T is a membership organization (unlike IETF), so the most straightforward
avenue, if your employer is not already a member, is to convince your company to
join. There are two avenues for this:

- Joining as a full sector member of ITU-T. This allows full participation in
  all Study Groups and TSAG. This is relatively expensive (31,500 Swiss
  Francs/year)

- Becoming an associate of a single Study Group (e.g., Study Group 15 for
  ASON, SDH, OTN, etc.). This is about 1/3 the price of full sector membership.

(There are no meeting fees for sector members or associates no matter how many
people from your company attend. If your company sends 3-4 people to 3 IETF
meetings a year (depending on the exchange rates at the moment), you are
paying about the same in meeting fees as you would pay for the same people
to participate as an associate of an ITU-T Study Group.)

- In certain cases, individuals from private companies participate under
  the umbrella of their "member state" (country). ITU-T is a United Nations
  thing, and all 189 UN member countries are members of ITU-T. Your mileage
  may vary on your ability to do this (or how long you can get away with
  it) based on what country you hail from: some national administrations
  get testy about private industry not paying their fair share.

- You can always participate in discussions on the IETF side that result
  in liaison statements to ITU-T that will be considered as input documents
  on the ITU-T side.

- ITU-T and IETF/ISOC have a formal relationship documented in A.Sup3 for
  ITU-T and in RFC 3356 for IETF (identical text in both documents). Under
  this agreement, IETF WGs and Areas can designate individuals to participate
  in ITU-T on behalf of ISOC/IETF (ISOC is actually a sector member of ITU-T).
  The specific procedures read:
"3.2 Representation

   ISOC, including its standards body IETF, is a Sector Member of the
   ITU-T.  As a result, ISOC delegates are therefore afforded the same
   rights as other ITU-T Sector Members (see 3.2.1).  Conversely, ITU-T
   delegates may participate in the work of the IETF as representatives
   of the ITU-T (see 3.2.2).  To promote collaboration it is useful to
   facilitate communication between the organizations as further
   described below.

3.2.1 IETF Recognition at ITU-T

   Participants from the IETF may participate in ITU-T meetings as ISOC
   delegates if the appropriate IETF Working Group (or Area) has
   approved their attendance.  This approval will be communicated to the
   TSB in the form of a registration for a particular ITU-T meeting by
   the IAB Chair."

So, if you want to participate in ITU-T to represent IETF, this can be
done - talk to your WG chair and/or AD to get the ball rolling. You won't
be the first to do this: Kireeti participated in the Rapporteur's meeting
of ITU-T Q.14/15 last June even though Juniper is not a member of ITU-T.

> Well, I can't vouch for whether it is crisp or not, but if you look at Appendix 1 of
> draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt you will find...
> "Appendix 1: Analysis of RFC 3474 (and RFC 3476) against GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling
> Requirements in support of ASON"
> I believe the authors added this appendix in response to the specific request for a clear
> statement of the things that they believed were wrong or missing.
> 
> Since you're not the only one to suggest to me in the last month that these things aren't
> written down, it is clear that the authors did not make the existence of this text clear
> enough. Not did the chairs - sorry.
> 
> 
>>No new activity should be started until this is done.
>>(Note that Kam Lam, Rapporteur of Q.14/15 sent an email to the WG chairs
>>on Nov. 19, and to the full list on Nov. 22 requesting specifics - so
>>far no response. See http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2003/msg01089.html )
> 
> 
> Well, it is perhaps a little premature to expect a response. As you know, ITU-T liaison is
> (or appears to me to be) a fairly formal process. That means that the text has to be
> prepared, drafted, circulated, put before the WG, and then submitted.
Hmmmm.... so ITU-T is supposed to find a characterization about a problem in
one of its documents by finding something in an appendix of an individual
internet draft.

Not only does this seem pretty unreliable as far as getting the message across,
it also doesn't work with the ITU-T process. We are only supposed to take action
based on a set of input documents which include contributions (from member
states, sector members, or associates) and liaison statements from organizations
that ITU-T has a relationship with (including ISOC/IETF).

Liaison statements need not be all that formal. A good model for a liaison
statement is a business letter. (see draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt for what
we are trying to do to make sending/responding to liaison statements a
more normal part of how IETF does business so we can deal more effectively
with other organizations).

Something need not be "fully cooked" before it is sent (although it is good
to indicate the level of maturity or agreement in the letter). In fact,
it is best to have this two way communication underway before things are
fully cooked so that there is room for alignment or compromise as results
are finalized.

In any case, I still feel that it is not appropriate to start a parallel/
alternate track solution document here in IETF before closing the loop
with ITU-T about any missed requirements or mistakes in the existing
solutions.
Regards,
Steve