idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 8, 2009) is 5341 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
3 Network Working Group L. Andersson 4 Internet-Draft Ericsson Inc 5 Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward 6 Expires: March 8, 2010 Cisco Systems 7 M. Betts 8 Huaweil 9 September 8, 2009 11 Joint IETF and ITU-T Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport 12 Profile process 14 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2010. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 47 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 48 and restrictions with respect to this document. 50 Abstract 52 The decision to develop a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 53 Transport Profile in cooperation between IETF and ITU-T does not 54 fully define and document processes for development of the required 55 RFCs. 57 This document complements the processes documented in the JWT 58 decision with a few separate elements; it: 60 o provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process, 62 o identifies the expected participation in the process by the ITU-T, 64 o clarifies the decision rules regarding MPLS-TP documents. 66 This document is not intended to specify any ITU-T process; to the 67 extent necessary ITU-T activities will be done according to ITU-T 68 process/rules. 70 Nor is this document is intended to specify the IETF working group 71 process, it is limited to the temporary adaptations of that process 72 that is the result of that IETF and ITU-T accepted the proposal in 73 the JWT report to jointly develop the MPLS Transport Profile. In 74 general it may be said that these adaptations are introduced to 75 ensure a good and consistent document review across the two 76 organizations. 78 Table of Contents 80 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 82 1.1.1. IETF terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 1.1.2. ITU-T terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 2. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . . . 7 85 2.1. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . 7 86 2.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 2.2.1. Developing a MPLS-TP document . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 88 3. Expectations on ITU-T participation in the process . . . . . . 14 89 3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 90 3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents by participants in the 91 ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 92 3.3. Poll for working group documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 93 3.4. Responding to an IETF Working Group Last Call . . . . . . 15 94 4. Specific guidelines that apply to work on MPLS-TP in the 95 ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 96 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 97 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 98 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 99 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 100 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 101 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 104 1. Introduction 106 When IETF and ITU-T entered into the agreement to develop MPLS-TP, 107 the JWT agreement included the decision that the MPLS-TP documents 108 should be developed "according to IETF processes". It was also 109 assumed that there would be close cooperation in reviewing these IETF 110 documents. The JWT decision is documented in RFC 5317 [RFC5317]. 112 However, the process for this close cooperative review was mostly 113 left to be decided as the documents evolved. The ITU-T committed to 114 responding promptly to IETF working group last calls, this may 115 require the development of the response via correspondence. 117 Nor is this document is intended to specify the IETF working group 118 process, it is limited to the temporary adaptations of that process 119 that is the result of that IETF and ITU-T accepted the proposal in 120 the JWT report to jointly develop the MPLS Transport Profile. In 121 general it may be said that these adaptations are introduced to 122 ensure a good and consistent document review across the two 123 organizations. 125 This document complements the process as documented in the JWT 126 decision with a few separate elements; it: 128 o Provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process, with 129 respect to the role of the teams (MPLS Interoperability Design 130 Team (MEAD Team), the Joint Working Team (JWT) and the ITU-T 131 MPLS-TP ad hoc team) that has been set up to facilitate the 132 development of MPLS-TP; see Section 2. 134 o Identifies the expected participation by the ITU-T in the document 135 development process; see Section 3. 137 o Clarifies decision rules regarding MPLS-TP documents; see 138 Section 4. 140 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 141 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 142 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 144 1.1. Terminology 146 This section includes a number of terms and abbreviations that are 147 used in this document. The section is split into two subsection; 148 IETF terms and ITU-T terms. 150 1.1.1. IETF terms and abbreviations 152 o JWT - Joint Working Team, a team with participants with experience 153 from standards development in the IETF and the ITU-T. 155 Note: The JWT is not part of either the IETF or ITU-T, but a group 156 that has been set up to facilitate cooperation on MPLS-TP between 157 the two organizations. 159 o JWT documents - the set of documents envisioned in the 160 documentation of the JWT decision, see RFC 5317 [RFC5317]. 162 o MEAD team - MPLS Interoperability Design Team, a temporary team 163 with participants with experience from standards development for 164 MPLS and transport networks. The MEAD team is chartered to 165 coordinate the development of MPLS-TP within the IETF and to 166 coordinate the on MPLS-TP cooperation with the ITU-T. 168 o MPLS-TP documents - the following sets of documents are counted as 169 MPLS-TP documents: 171 * Internet Drafts that are coordinated by the MEAD team. 173 * Individual Internet Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP problem 174 space. 176 * Working group Internet Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP 177 problem space. 179 * Internet Drafts that are considered for publication by the IESG 180 and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space. 182 * Internet Drafts that are approved for publication by the IESG 183 and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space. 185 * Published RFCs that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space. 187 * ITU-T Recommendations and draft Recommendations in various 188 stages of development that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space. 190 Documents that originates from the IRTF RFC stream is NOT considered 191 as MPLS-TP documents. 193 1.1.2. ITU-T terms and abbreviations 195 o Ad Hoc on MPLS-TP - A team established by SG 15 of ITU-T to 196 coordinate the work on MPLS-TP within the ITU-T and to act as a 197 focal point for communication with the IETF. 199 o Contribution - a contribution is a document that is submitted to 200 the ITU-T to advance work on the development of a Recommendation 201 or to propose the development of a new Recommendation. 203 o Recommendation - a Recommendation is the ITU-T standards document. 205 2. Adaptation of the IETF working group process 207 The IETF working group processes as defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] are 208 for the purpose of the MPLS-TP updated as follows. 210 The IETF works according to a 'rough consensus' model, where working 211 group chairs determine the consensus after discussions on the mailing 212 lists. This is applicable to the MPLS-TP work also. The 213 mpls-tp@ietf.org is the mailing list used to find out consensus and 214 consensus is determined by the MEAD team chair. After a document has 215 become a working group document the consensus is decided by the WG 216 chairs and the MEAD team chair jointly. 218 A most important part of this process is the information exchange 219 between the IETF and ITU-T. This information exchange consists of 220 two equally important pieces: 222 o informal information exchange 224 this is done primarily by E-Mail to the relevant mailing lists. 225 Information sent from IETF, IETF areas and working groups, or from 226 the IETF MEAD team are sent to and areas and the 227 ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int mailing list. Information sent from ITU-T 228 to the IETF should e sent to the MEAD team (mead@ietf.org) and/or 229 the mpls-tp@ietf.org mailing list. 231 o formal information exchange 233 In addition to E-Mail, a formal information exchange is 234 accomplished by liaison correspondence between the two 235 organisations. Exchange of liaisons makes it possible to follow 236 the request/response exchange between the organisations in more 237 detail. 239 2.1. Adaptation of the IETF working group process 241 The flow chart below describes the adaption of the working group 242 process 243 ............. ............. 244 : Ind Docs :------+ : JWT docs : 245 ............. | ............. 246 | | | 247 | ind-00 (1) | ind-00 (2) | ind-00 (3) 248 | | | 249 v | v 250 +-----------+ | +----------------+ (4) +-------+ 251 | WG proc | +------->| MEAD team proc |<----->| ITU-T | 252 | |-------+ +--| | +-------+ 253 +-----------+ | | +----------------+ (5) | 254 +-> ind-00, ind-01, etc | | ind-00, ind-01, etc <-+<-----+ 255 | | (6) +--+---+ (6) | | 256 +----------+ |(7) +-------------+ 257 review +----+ review 258 | 259 poll for wg doc -----------------+ 260 | | (7a) 261 v v 262 +-------------+ (8) +-------+ 263 +----------> | wg doc |<------------>| ITU-T | 264 | +-------------+ +-------+ 265 | | +-> wg-00, wg-01, etc | 266 | | | | (9) | (10) 267 | | +----------+<----------------+ 268 | (11) | review 269 | v 270 | +-----------------+ (12) +---------+ 271 (14b) | | wg last call |<----------->| ITU-T | 272 | +-----------------+ +---------+ 273 | | ^ | 274 | (13)| |(14a) | (15) 275 | v | | 276 | +---------+ | 277 +-------| ITU-T | | 278 +---------+ | 279 | 280 v 281 +-----------------+ 282 | req for publ | 283 +-----------------+ 285 2.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process 287 This section gives guidelines for how the flow chart above could be 288 traversed. 290 2.2.1. Developing a MPLS-TP document 292 Individual MPLS-TP documents may take different paths through the 293 this process, the numbers in the list below are mapped to the numbers 294 in the flow chart above. 296 Although the different paths through the flow chart are given as 297 'options' it is always possible for the MEAD team to step in and take 298 over the shepherding of a particular MPLS-TP Internet Draft . This 299 is done in cooperation between the MEAD team chair, the relevant 300 working group chairs and the document editors/authors. 302 1. They may be intended for and managed by a working group. 304 This means that the author, or authors, of such a document have 305 chosen to send the document to a working group instead of 306 running through the MEAD team. Normal IETF process will kick in 307 in such cases and working group chairs will agree to which 308 working group(s) such a document will be taken. 310 2. They may be coordinated by the MEAD team. 312 This means that the author, or authors, of such a document have 313 chosen to send the document to the MEAD team to be coordinated 314 with the rest of the MPLS-TP documents that is in the purview of 315 the MEAD team. 317 3. They may be originated by the MEAD team based on the JWT 318 decision. 320 In documentation of the work of the JWT, there is a proposed 321 document structure. The MEAD team used this structure to decide 322 on a set of documents that will, when completed, constitute the 323 MPLS-TP standard. This set of documents may change slightly, if 324 - e.g. - it becomes more appropriate to split a single document 325 into two or more, or if some new aspect of MPLS-TP needs to be 326 specified. 328 4. Everytime a document is accepted by the MEAD team into the set 329 of documents coordinated by the MEAD team a liaison is sent to 330 the ITU-T with a pointer to that document. At the same time a 331 note is sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list informing 332 the list that the document has become a MEAD team document. 334 The ITU-T may chose to respond to the liaison but is not 335 required to do so, see Section 3 and Section 4. 337 5. At any time, it is possible for the ITU-T SG and Question 338 participants to send review comments on MEAD team documents. It 339 is also possible for the MEAD team to ask for such reviews and 340 comments. 342 Any time such input or requests are sent between the two 343 organizations it SHALL be accompanied by a note from the MPLS-TP 344 ad hoc team chair(s) to the MEAD team mailing list, or from the 345 MEAD team chair to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list. This 346 is done to enhance the efficiency of the information exchange. 348 6. A working group or the MEAD team may issue requests for general 349 comments on MPLS-TP documents at any time, if it is deemed 350 appropriate to extend these requests to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team 351 this is done via a note according to entry (5) in this list. 353 7. If a MPLS-TP document seems mature enough to become a working 354 group document, a poll is done on the mpls-tp mailing list and 355 the appropriate working group mailing list (7), this request 356 will also be sent to the ITU-T as a liaison (7a) and a note will 357 also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team. 359 Which working group a document goes into is decided jointly 360 between the MEAD team, working group chairs of the potential 361 working groups and the document editors/authors. 363 If the document is accepted as a working group document the 364 working group takes over the revision control of the document. 366 The ITU-T is expected to respond to the liaison within in the 367 time indicated in the liaison, see Section 3 and Section 4. 369 8. Every time a MPLS-TP document is accepted as a working group 370 document by any IETF working group, a liaison is sent to the 371 ITU-T with a pointer to the document. At the same time, a note 372 is sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list informing the 373 list that the document has become a working group document. 375 9. Working group documents may be reviewed in several steps, every 376 time such a review is initiated the MPLS-TP ad hoc team is 377 notified (10). 379 Note that most comments leading to updates of working group 380 documents are a result of spontaneous individual reviews and 381 comments from the individual participants in the MPLS-TP effort. 383 10. Every time a review is initiated by a working group the 384 appropriate ITU-T SGs and Questions will be notified by E-Mail 385 to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team. 387 Optionally the request for review may be accompanied by a 388 liaison to formalize the request. 390 The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is responsible for ensuring that any 391 e-mail requests are copied/forwarded to the relevant SGs and 392 Questions. 394 11. When a document is deemed mature enough, a working group last 395 call is initiated. At this time the action describe under item 396 12 in this list MUST be executed. 398 12. Procedures to be followed when a working group last call is 399 initiated. 401 * A liaison containing a request for participation in the 402 working group last call will be sent to the appropriate ITU-T 403 SGs and Questions. 405 * A notification that the working group last call is taking 406 place will be provided to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team via E-Mail 407 sent to the MPLS-TP mailing list. 409 * ITU-T is REQUIRED to respond to the liaison within the time 410 indicated. The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is expected to verify 411 that all the SGs and Questions within the ITU-T that need to 412 respond to the working group last call are aware that it has 413 been issued. 415 13. When all last call comments are addressed and/or responded to, 416 the document will be sent to the ITU-T, asking if the document 417 is ready to be sent to the IESG with a request for publication. 418 The response sought from ITU-T is either an acknowledgment that 419 the document is ready to publish or a response that there is 420 further work that needs to be done. 422 Note: WG last call may be re-iterated, for the entire document 423 or limited to only verify the updates made because of an earlier 424 working group last call. 426 14. The ITU-T has one week to respond (yes or no) to the question 427 posed in (13). 429 The answer can be either "yes - go ahead" (14a), in which case 430 the Working Group will request publication; or ... 432 ... it can be "no - more work is needed" (14b), in which case it 433 will go back into the normal working group process to identify 434 what is needed. 436 15. When the ITU-T gives the final acknowledgement (14a), a request 437 for publication will be sent to the IESG (15). 439 The document that is sent to the ITU-T in step (13) and which 440 generates a positivie response from ITU-T (14a) is sent 441 unchanged, save for editorial changes, to the IESG with a 442 request for publication (15) as a RFC. 444 Once this request for publication is sent, the last point in 445 this process where it is acceptable to allow ITU-T influence in 446 the development of a document is passed. After this point, the 447 document will be handled as any other IETF document. 449 2.2.1.1. Naming conventions for MPLS-TP Internet Drafts 451 To make it easier to search in the IETF Internet Draft repositories 452 the the following guidelines should be followed for the MPLS-TP 453 Internet Draft filenames. 455 o All MPLS-TP Internet Draft should include the sequence "mpls-tp" 456 in the filename. 458 o Individual MPLS-TP Internet Draft should be named according to 459 this format: 461 draft-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt 463 "name" is the last name of the main editor, or an acronym 464 indicating the last names of the set of editors. 466 "topic" indicates the content of the draft, e.g. "oam-framework". 468 "??" indictes a two digit version number, starting with "00". 470 o MPLS working group documents should be named according to this 471 format: 473 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt 475 o MPLS-TP documents from other working groups shouldbe named 476 according to this format: 478 draft-ietf-wg-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt 480 "wg-name" is the acronym for any working group chartered to do 481 MPLS-TP work, e.g. pwe3 or ccamp. 483 3. Expectations on ITU-T participation in the process 485 The IETF and ITU-T processes for the development of the MPLS-TP 486 standards interconnect at the following point in the flow chart 487 above: (4), (5), (7a), (8), (10) and (12). This section briefly 488 describes what is expected to happen on the ITU-T side at the 489 interaction points. 491 3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document 493 (4) is a point at which the MEAD team communicates to the ITU-T that 494 a document is considered to be accepted for coordination by the MEAD 495 team. 497 The ITU-T is expected to respond to the communication with a simple 498 ACK or NAK, however a non-response is counted as an ACK. 500 An ACK means that ITU-T accepts that the document has become a MEAD 501 team document, a NAK means that ITU-T has issues that needs to be 502 resolved before the document is allowed to progress. 504 3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents by participants in the ITU-T 506 (5) and (10) offer possibilities for ITU-T, or people active in the 507 ITU-T, to send un-triggered comments on MEAD team or working group 508 documents. Such comments shall be sent to the mpls-tp list and for 509 working group documents also to the appropriate working group mailing 510 list. Comments received in this way will be treated in the same way 511 any as other individual comments received on the IETF documents. 513 3.3. Poll for working group documents 515 (7a) is the point at which an IETF working group informs the ITU-T 516 that a poll to progress a document to an IETF working group document 517 has been started. 519 It is not necessary, or required, for the ITU-T to respond to this 520 message. If the ITU-T has serious concerns these should be provided 521 via a liaison statement. If the ITU-T has no serious concerns it is 522 allowed and encouraged that individual participants provide comments. 523 Such responses shall be sent to the appropriate working group and 524 mpls-tp mailing lists and represent the view of the person sending 525 the mail. 527 An Internet Draft is ready to become a working group draft if it 528 meets at least the three criteria below. 530 o it is within the charter of the working group 532 o it addresses a problem that needs to be solved 534 o it is a good enough start toward solving this problem 536 Responses to polls checking if a document is ready to become a 537 working group document should be limited to considering if the 538 document meets those three criteria. 540 3.4. Responding to an IETF Working Group Last Call 542 (12) is the point in the process where ITU-T is made aware of that an 543 IETF working group last call has been started. The working group 544 last call is issued when a working group document is getting close to 545 being ready for publication. The intention is to make sure that 546 there are no important pieces missing and that technical details are 547 correct. 549 According to the JWT decision ITU-T is required to respond to a 550 working group last call within the time set in announcing the working 551 group last call. 553 The chair of an IETF working group that starts a working group last 554 call will send a liaison to the ITU-T announcing the working group 555 last call. A message will also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team. 556 The IETF will make a best effort attempt to target the SGs and 557 Questions that should be involved in responding to the working group 558 last call. However, the ITU-T has to make sure that the appropriate 559 entities within the ITU-T participate in responding to the working 560 group last call. The ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team coordinates the 561 development of the ITU-T response to the working group last call. 563 4. Specific guidelines that apply to work on MPLS-TP in the ITU-T 565 These guidelines apply to progressing work on MPLS-TP in the ITU-T. 567 Any member of the ITU-T may send a MPLS-TP contribution to a ITU-T 568 Study Group or Question. 570 Before the ITU-T initiates any new work (i.e. items not previously 571 identified by the JWT) based on such contributions the ITU-T shall 572 send a liaison to the IETF. The message will go to the MEAD team, 573 and the team is responsible for creating a consolidated IETF 574 response. 576 The IETF is expected to respond to the information that a new 577 MPLS-TP work item has been proposed with an ACK or NAK. 579 If the response is a NAK that work item is held until the issues 580 is resolved. 582 5. IANA considerations 584 There are no requests for IANA allocation of code points in this 585 document. 587 6. Security considerations 589 This document defines a process adaptation for the cooperation 590 between IETF and ITU-T and thus does not introduce any new security 591 considerations. 593 7. Acknowledgments 595 Thanks to Eric Gray who helped with grammar and useful comments. 596 Thanks to Tom Petch who spent time trying to sort out what I wanted 597 to say and has sent comments that helped clarify the document. 599 8. References 601 8.1. Normative References 603 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 604 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 606 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 607 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 609 8.2. Informative References 611 [RFC5317] Bryant, S. and L. Andersson, "Joint Working Team (JWT) 612 Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a 613 Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009. 615 Authors' Addresses 617 Loa Andersson 618 Ericsson Inc 620 Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com 622 David Ward 623 Cisco Systems 625 Email: dward@cisco.com 627 Malcolm Betts 628 Huaweil 630 Email: malcolm.betts@huawei.com 632