[Int-area] consensus call on liaison response to ITU-T SG 13

[Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at nokia.com>]

Hi,

the IETF Transport and Internet areas received this liaison statement  
from ITU-T SG 13 on October 9, 2007: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/378/

> Attached is proposed new Recommendation Y.flowreq, Requirements for  
> the Support of Flow State Aware Transport Technology in an NGN, as  
> consented at the September 2007 meeting of WP 4/13.
>
> ITU-T SG 11 is invited to review the Y.flowreq requirements, and to  
> develop signaling protocol Recommendations implementing them as  
> appropriate.
>
> ITU-T SG 12 is invited to review the Y.flowreq requirements, and to  
> consider their impacts on Recommendation Y.1221 (Q.16/12), Y.1541 (Q. 
> 17/12), and other SG 12 Recommendations.
>
> IETF is invited to review the Y.flowreq requirements, and to  
> consider their impacts on IETF-defined protocols.

Please refer to the liaison statement at the URL above for the full  
text of the ITU-T Y.flowreq recommendation.

The Transport and Internet ADs have discussed this liaison statement,  
and we're proposing to send the following liaison response to ITU-T SG  
13 on behalf of the two IETF areas. To do so, we'd like to confirm  
that there is consensus in the two areas on the proposed liaison text.

The ITU-T has requested a response by January 2008. We'd thus like to  
run the consensus call during the next four weeks, i.e., until  
December 14, 2007. This will allow the opportunity to discuss this  
topic in Vancouver, if needed.

Lars (for Jari, Mark, Magnus and Lars)

<snip>

Submission Date: <tbd>
From: IETF Transport and Internet areas
To: ITU-T SG 13 (ITU-T SG 11 and SG 12 for information)
Cc: huilanlu at alcatel-lucent.com, sebek at itu.int, tsbsg13 at itu.int
Response Contact: lars.eggert at nokia.com
Technical Contact: lars.eggert at nokia.com
Purpose: In response
Deadline: none

The IESG and the IETF Transport and Internet Areas would like to thank  
ITU-T SG 13 Question 4 for the notification of consent on the  
"Requirements for the Support of Flow State Aware Transport Technology  
in an NGN (Y.2121)". We appreciate that the ITU-T is cooperating with  
the IETF when their Recommendations on Next Generation Networks  
involve IETF standards.

As explained in our previous liaison response to ITU-T SG 13 dated  
October 13, 2006, the requirements in Y.2121 (then Y.flowreq) propose  
significant and fundamental changes to the Internet architecture and  
several of its core protocols and mechanisms. These include new  
congestion control methods, new authentication and authorization  
procedures, new signaling schemes and new methods for routing and  
traffic security.

The recently-published RFC 4775 [1] on "Procedures for Protocol  
Extensions and Variations", which was created with considerable help  
from ITU-T representatives, defines guideline procedures for  
cooperation between the IETF and outside entities on the extension of  
IETF protocols. It attempts to ensure that extensions will conform to  
the applicable architectural principles and technical criteria. Any  
development of protocol extensions and mechanisms to fullfil the  
requirements in Y.2121 would clearly need to occur under the  
guidelines of RFC 4775.

Following this liaison response to ITU-T SG 13, we had a very  
constructive discussion with the proponents of flow-state aware  
forwarding during the 67th IETF meeting in San Diego, CA, USA in  
November 2006. During the meeting, we quickly reached a common  
agreement that development of protocol extensions to support Y.2121  
will follow the guidelines in RFC 4775. The proponents of flow-state- 
aware forwarding agreed to bring their ideas to the IETF in the form  
of Internet Drafts and perhaps presentations, so that they can be  
discussed by the full body of experts in the areas it covers.

We are pleased to note that following the face-to-face meeting at  
IETF-67, a common mailing list (qos-inband at ietf.org) was created, and  
the proponents of flow-state aware forwarding discussed documenting  
their ideas in an Internet Draft, with the eventual goal of requesting  
a "Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF)" session at an upcoming IETF, to present  
their proposals to the wider IETF community.

We continue to encourage this effort by the proponents of flow-state  
aware forwarding and look forward to their Internet Drafts and  
eventual BOF request.


[1] S. Bradner, B. Carpenter and T. Narten. Procedures for Protocol  
Extensions and Variations. Best Current Practice (BCP) 125, RFC 4775,  
December 2006.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area