Hi,
the consensus call has ended. There was no disagreement on the content
of the statement and at least some positive indications, so we'll send
this.
Thanks,
Lars
On 2007-11-14, at 15:05, ext Lars Eggert wrote:
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Response Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
