Comments on draft-iab-rfc3356bis-01

[andrew.g.malis@…]

I have three minor and one major comment on the draft.

1. There are a bunch of acronyms that need explanation or expansion. For example, "TSB" is never explained or expanded. "ITU-T" is only expanded in the document title. I'm sure there are others. (I know what they mean, but others may not).

2. Section 3.2 should make it explicit that ITU-T participants are welcome to participate in the IETF as individuals in addition to being an official ITU-T delegate, and IETF participants may participate in the ITU-T via other sector membership or as a member of a country delegation in addition to being an official ISOC delegate.

3. The word "Chair" is missing from the title of 3.2.3.1.

4. Section 3.1 currently says:

"Study groups that have identified work topics that are IP-
related should evaluate the relationship with topics defined in
the IETF."

"An IETF Working Group should also evaluate and identify areas of
relationship with the ITU-T and document the collaboration with
the ITU-T study group in its charter."

The major problems in the past in IETF/ITU-T relations have generally occurred because this process was not followed, on one side or the other. I'm afraid that this continue unless this language is strengthened (making the "shoulds" be "musts"?) and also made a part of the general operating procedures of each group, rather than just existing in this document. I recognize that this is easier said than done.

[lear@…]

Hi Andy,

Re: acronyms. -02 attempts to address this matter.

Section 3.2 should make it explicit that ITU-T participants are welcome to participate in the IETF as individuals in addition to being an official ITU-T delegate, and IETF participants may participate in the ITU-T via other sector membership or as a member of a country delegation in addition to being an official ISOC delegate.

We have discussed the matter of how IETF representatives may participate, and this text is fairly carefully crafted to require ISOC to facilitate necessary registrations, leaving the matter of who represents the IETF between ISOC and the IETF. It is understood that people who have official roles within the IETF have to say something from time to time, whether or not it is in the ITU.

The word "Chair" is missing from the title of 3.2.3.1.

This is corrected.

Section 3.1 currently says:

"Study groups that have identified work topics that are IP-
related should evaluate the relationship with topics defined in
the IETF."

"An IETF Working Group should also evaluate and identify areas of
relationship with the ITU-T and document the collaboration with
the ITU-T study group in its charter."

Atoca
Avtcore*
Avtext
Behave*
Bfcpbis
Bfd
Bliss
Bmwg*
Ccamp
Cdni*
Clue*
Codec
Conex
Core
Csi
Cuss
Dane
Dccp
Decade
Dhc
Dime
Dispatch
Dmm
Dnsext
Dnsop
Drinks
Eai
Ecrit
Eman
Emu*
Fecframe
Forces
Geopriv
Grow*
Hip
Hokey
Homenet
Httpbis
Hybi
Idr*
Insipid
Intarea
Ipfix
Ippm
Ipsecme*
Iri
Isis
Jose
Karp
Kitten
Krb-wg
L2tpext
L2vpn
L3vpn
Ledbat
Lisp
Lwig
Manet*
Marf
Mboned
Mediactrl
Mif*
Mile
Mip4
Mmusic
Mpls*
Mptcp*
Multimob
Nea
Netconf
Netext
Netmod*
Nfsv4*
Ntp
Nvo3
Oauth*
Opsawg
Opsec
Ospf
P2psip
Paws
Payload
Pce
Pcn
Pcp
Pim
Pkix
Pppext
Ppsp
Precis
Pwe3
Radext
Repute
Rmt
Roll
Rtcweb
Rtgwg
Salud
Savi
Sidr
Sieve
Simple
Sipclf
Sipcore
Siprec
Soc
Softwire
Speechsc
Spfbis
Storm
Sunset4
Tcpm
Tictoc
Tls
Trill
Tsvwg
Urnbis
V6ops
Vcarddav
Vipr
Websec
Weirds
Xmpp
Xrblock*

• WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

iab

logged in as lear@…
Logout
About Trac
Preferences
Help/Guide?

Wiki
Timeline
Roadmap
Browse Source
View Tickets
New Ticket
Search

← Previous Ticket
Next Ticket →

Modify ↓
Ticket #149 (new defect)

Opened 4 weeks ago

Last modified 4 weeks ago
Comments on draft-iab-rfc3356bis-01
Reported by: andrew.g.malis@… Owned by: lear@…
Priority: major Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-rfc3356bis Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:
Cc:
Description

I have three minor and one major comment on the draft.

There are a bunch of acronyms that need explanation or expansion. For example, "TSB" is never explained or expanded. "ITU-T" is only expanded in the document title. I'm sure there are others. (I know what they mean, but others may not).

Section 3.2 should make it explicit that ITU-T participants are welcome to participate in the IETF as individuals in addition to being an official ITU-T delegate, and IETF participants may participate in the ITU-T via other sector membership or as a member of a country delegation in addition to being an official ISOC delegate.

The word "Chair" is missing from the title of 3.2.3.1.

Section 3.1 currently says:

"Study groups that have identified work topics that are IP-
related should evaluate the relationship with topics defined in
the IETF."

"An IETF Working Group should also evaluate and identify areas of
relationship with the ITU-T and document the collaboration with
the ITU-T study group in its charter."

The major problems in the past in IETF/ITU-T relations have generally occurred because this process was not followed, on one side or the other. I'm afraid that this continue unless this language is strengthened (making the "shoulds" be "musts"?) and also made a part of the general operating procedures of each group, rather than just existing in this document. I recognize that this is easier said than done.

Indeed it is. To do what you suggest would require changing the document's intended status on both sides, requiring TAP on the ITU-T side and an IETF-wide last call with IESG approval on the other side. That's not going to happen this time around.

[lear@…]

[reopening for now.]