Internet Info 1994 March/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso/inet/internet-drafts/draft-iab-liaisons-00.txt

Text File | 1993-07-08 | 9KB | 286 lines

Network Working Group                                         C. Huitema
Internet Draft                                                       IAB
Expiration Date: December 1993                                 June 1993


      Liaison between Internet and other standardization agencies



Status of this Memo

    This document is an Internet Draft, issued by the Internet Architec-
    ture Board (IAB).

    Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
    other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
    Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "work-
    ing draft" or "work in progress." Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt
    listing contained in the internet-drafts Shadow Directories on
    nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or
    munnari.oz.au to learn the current status of any Internet Draft.

























[Huitema]                                                       [Page 1]


Internet Draft                ISO and IETF                     June 1993


Abstract

    The IAB has been working toward establishing a liaison relationship
    between the Internet Society and the other standards making organi-
    zation, such as the ISO and the ITU.  This memo presents a rationale
    for establishing such a liaison.  It also presents a summary of past
    actions and a status report on the current progress.

    The Internet will benefit from cooperative relationships with other
    international organizations on a broad range of common interests and
    activities. These liaisons will enhance the recognition of the IETF
    as an important source of international computer communication stan-
    dards.

    The benefits of the liaisons have to be weighted against their cost.
    The agreements, if any, should not affect the IETF process, nor pre-
    clude in any way the results of the IPng discussions.



1.  International cooperation

    As the Internet grows in size, it also grows in visibility and
    importance.  Decisions which could in the early days be made by
    small committees of researchers now may have a profound influence on
    industries and markets, and must now be made in a manner which is
    "demonstrably open and fair".  This requirement for openness and
    fairness has already been taken into account in the organization of
    the IETF process: open working groups are the norm, and the dif-
    ferent steps of the standardization process are formalized and pub-
    licized in RFC-1310.

    However, the "openess" and "fairness" of the process may not be suf-
    ficient for acceptance of the Internet standards by some important
    potential users. This is in particular the case in government agen-
    cies, where different "GOSIP" or equivalent profiles still only man-
    date OSI standards -- although user communities generally recognize
    that they would benefit from using TCP-IP based products. It is
    clearly very important for the development of the Internet that the
    Internet standards and products be recognized by government bodies



[Huitema]                                                       [Page 2]












Internet Draft                ISO and IETF                     June 1993


    and authorized in government markets!

    One way to enhance the acceptability of the Internet standards is to
    establish liaison between the Internet Society (ISOC) and other
    standardization agencies, notably ISO and the ITU. According to its
    charter, the IAB is in charge of establishing these liaisons.

    It should be noted that the Internet Society (ISOC) has more motiva-
    tions than "acceptibility of standards" for liaising with other
    organizations. For example, the cooperation being pursued with the
    ITU also extend to another area of mutual interest: the development
    of the infrastructure.



2.  A brief history

    Preliminary contacts between IAB, ISOC, ISO and the ITU have already
    taken place, in the framework of the "Interregional Telecommunica-
    tions Standards Conferences" (ITSC):

    (1) Vint Cerf, then IAB Chair, participated to the 1st ITSC (Freder-
        icksburg, Virginia, 20 February 1990), and during a panel
        described IAB/IETF standards making process and the potential
        for cooperation with other standards bodies, including the use
        of the Internet by all bodies.

    (2) Lyman Chapin, which had succeeded to Vint Cerf as IAB Chair,
        attended ITSC-2 (Nice, France, September 1991) representing the
        IAB/IETF.  He presented the IAB/IETF process and the possible
        usages of the Internet during the meeting Plenary.

    One result of these contacts was the decision to experiment the dif-
    fusion of CCITT recommendations through the Internet. This was
    announced by the ITU Secretary-General in a joint videoconference
    with Internet representatives to INTEROP and Telecom'91 congres-
    sists, in October 1991.

    Contacts have been pursued at the initiative of Vint Cerf (now ISOC
    president) and Tony Rutkowski (ISOC vice-president), and a number of



[Huitema]                                                       [Page 3]












Internet Draft                ISO and IETF                     June 1993


    letters have already been exchanged:

    (1) On 15 June 1992, in Kobe Japan, the ISOC Board of Trustees
        adopted a resolution to establish a cooperative relationship
        with the ITU.  Vint Cerf forwarded this resolution to Pekka J.
        Tarjanne, secretary general of the ITU in a letter dated August
        12, 1992. Several letters and faxes have been exchanged since
        that date. The matter has however been slowed down by the
        current reorganization of the ITU.

    (2) In a letter dated December 12, 1992 to Dr. Lawrence D. Eicher,
        Secretary-General of the ISO, Vint Cerf requested a "category A"
        liaison between ISOC and ISO. Several letters and faxes have
        been exchanged since that date between Vint Cerf and Mr. Keith
        Brannon (ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force).

    In parallel, and perhaps in relation with the proposal by some IETF
    participants to promote an ISO standard, CLNP, as "the next genera-
    tion IP", a subcommittee of ISO (SC-6) took upon itself to propose
    to the IAB a "category C" liaison. A representative of ISO SC-6,
    Jack Houldsworth, was invited to the open IAB meeting during the
    IETF meeting in Columbus, OH, on Tuesday evening March 30, 1993,
    during which a single topic was discussed: the proposals for liaison
    between the Internet Society/IETF standards process and the Interna-
    tional Standards Organization (ISO).  The pros and cons of these
    proposals were frankly and thoroughly discussed by the IAB and some
    30 attendees; one of the outcome was to better understand the
    difference between "category A" and "category C" liaison:

    (1) Category A means that ISO and ISOC would liaise on a "peer to
        peer" basis,

    (2) Category C means that IETF working group will have more facili-
        ties to submit their works as contributions to ISO working
        groups.

    The IAB members considered that the meeting was essentially informa-
    tional, and no decision was made -- although contrary information
    erroneously appeared in the "Open Systems Communication" newsletter
    dated April 19, 1993 (page 2-3).  This article inaccurately reported



[Huitema]                                                       [Page 4]












Internet Draft                ISO and IETF                     June 1993


    that the IAB agreed "to press ahead with the Category C relationship
    immediately".

    In fact, no decision was made at that time. The IAB later considered
    the matter in consultation with the President of the Internet
    Society, and decided to defer action upon the ISO category C liaison
    offer until negotiations on Category A are concluded.



3.  Pending actions

    The IAB discussed the pursuit of these liaisons, and came out with a
    set of recommendations:

    (1) The primary purpose of any such relationship, if it were to be
        established, should be to benefit the Internet through official
        recognition of the reality that the IETF is an important source
        of international computer communication standards.

    (2) No agreement should or will be made with another standards body
        that will in any way impede progress or change the style of
        operation of the IETF.

    (3) The outcome of the "Next Generation of IP" (IPng) discussions
        should in no way be tied to the progress of this relationship.

    The IAB decided to request that the ISOC president, Vint Cerf, pur-
    sue this liaison on its behalf.














[Huitema]                                                       [Page 5]