Network Working Group S. Krishnan, Ed.
Internet-Draft M. Kuehlewind
Obsoletes: 4052 (if approved) Q. Wu
Intended status: Informational IAB
Expires: 28 August 2025 24 February 2025
IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships
draft-krishnan-iab-rfc4052bis-00
Abstract
This document discusses the procedures used by the IAB to establish
and maintain formal liaison relationships between the IETF and other
Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), consortia and industry
fora. This document also discusses the appointment and
responsibilities of IETF liaison managers, and the expectations of
the IAB in establishing liaison relationships.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-iab-rfc4052bis/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Internet Architecture
Board Internet Engineering Task Force mailing list
(mailto:iab@iab.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iab/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iab/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-tab-rfc4052bis.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Changes compared to RFC4052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Aspects of Liaisons and Liaison Management . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Formal Liaison Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Liaison Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Liaison Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Summary of IETF Liaison Manager Responsibilities . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The IETF, as an organization, has the need to engage in direct
communication or joint work with various other formal organizations.
For example, the IETF is one of several Standards Development
Organizations, or SDOs, and SDOs including the IETF find it
increasingly necessary to communicate and coordinate their activities
involving Internet-related technologies. This is useful in order to
avoid overlap in work efforts, and to manage interactions between
their groups. In cases where the mutual effort to communicate and
coordinate activities is formalized, these relationships are
generically referred to as "liaison relationships".
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
In such cases, a person is designated by the IAB to manage a given
liaison relationship; that person is generally called the "IETF
liaison manager" to the other organization. Often, the other
organization will similarly designate their own liaison manager to
the IETF.
This document is chiefly concerned with:
* the establishment and maintenance of liaison relationships, and
* the appointment and responsibilities of IETF liaison managers.
The management of other organizations' liaison managers to the IETF,
whether or not in the context of a liaison relationship, is outside
the scope of this document.
The IETF has chartered the Internet Architecture Board to manage the
formal liaison relationships. Consistent with its charter [BCP39],
the IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF in
technical liaison relationships with other organizations concerned
with standards, and other technical and organizational issues
relevant to the worldwide Internet. Liaison relationships are kept
informal whenever possible, and must possess demonstrable value to
the IETF's technical mandate. Individual participants from the IETF
community are appointed as liaison managers to other organizations by
the IAB.
In general, a liaison relationship is most valuable when there are
areas of technical development of mutual interest. For the most
part, SDOs would rather leverage existing work done by other
organizations than recreate it themselves (and would like the same
done with respect to their own work). Establishing a liaison
relationship can provide the framework for ongoing communications to
* prevent inadvertent duplication of effort, without obstructing
either organization from pursuing its own mandate;
* provide authoritative information of one organization's
dependencies on the other's work.
It is important to note that participation in the IETF work is open
to everyone, and all the working documents and RFCs are freely
available to everyone without the need for a formal liaison
relationship. Hence, in almost all cases the need for a formal
relationship is mostly driven by other organizations rather than by
the IETF.
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
1.1. Changes compared to RFC4052
This version of the document contains the following updates:
1. Notes in the Introduction and Section 2.1 on "Liaison
Relationships" that the IETF process itself does not require a
formal liaison relationship, e.g. for document access or meeting
participation, and therefore the need for a formal liaison
relationship is often driven by processes of the peer
organization.
2. Statement that the "IAB acts as representative of the interests
of [..] the Internet Society" has been removed.
3. Role of the Liaison Representative (Section 2.3) has been removed
since this role is not used in pratice.
4. Clarifcation in section on "Liaison Communication" (now 2.3; was
2.4) that informal channels are preferred, with and without a
formal liaison relationship, and further that liaison statements
have no "special standing" in the IETF process.
5. Section 4 on "Approval and Transmission of Liaison Statements"
has been moved to 4053bis.
2. Aspects of Liaisons and Liaison Management
2.1. Formal Liaison Relationships
A formal liaison relationship is established when it is mutually
agreeable and required for some specific purposes, as viewed by the
other organization, the IAB, and the IETF participants conducting the
work. Some potential purposes include:
* The other organization requires a formal liaison relationship in
order to provide access to their working documents or standards.
* A formal liaison relationship is required to provide input to
ongoing work at other organizations.
* Required to participate in meetings of other organizations
There is no set process or form for this; the IETF participants and
the peer organization approach the IAB, and after discussion come to
an agreement to form the relationship. In some cases, the intended
scope and guidelines for the collaboration are documented
specifically (e.g., see [RFC3113], [RFC3131], and [RFC3356]).
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
In setting up the relationship, the IAB expects that there will be a
mutual exchange of views and discussion of the best approach for
undertaking new standardization work items. Any work items resulting
for the IETF will be undertaken using the usual IETF procedures,
defined in [BCP9]. The peer organization often has different
organizational structure and procedures than the IETF, which will
require some flexibility on the part of both organizations to
accommodate. There is an expectation that both organizations will
use the relationship carefully, allowing sufficient time for the
requests they make on the other organization to be processed.
2.2. Liaison Manager
As described above, most work on mutually interesting topics will be
carried out in the usual way within the IETF and the peer
organization. Therefore, most communications will be informal in
nature (for example, Working Group (WG) or mailing list discussions).
An important function of the liaison manager is to ensure that
communication is maintained, productive, and timely. He or she may
use any applicable businesslike approach, from private to public
communications, and bring in other parties as needed. If a
communication from a peer organization is addressed to an
inappropriate party, such as being sent to the WG but not copying the
Area Director (AD) or being sent to the wrong WG, the liaison manager
will help redirect or otherwise augment the communication.
IETF liaison managers should also communicate and coordinate with
other liaison managers where concerned technical activities overlap.
Since the IAB is ultimately responsible for liaison relationships,
anyone who has a problem with a relationship (whether an IETF
participant or a person from the peer organization) should first
consult the IAB's designated liaison manager, and if that does not
result in a satisfactory outcome, the IAB itself.
2.3. Liaison Communications
Communications between organizations use a variety of formal and
informal channels irrespective of established liaison relationships.
The stated preference of the IETF, which is largely an informal
organization, is to use informal channels (e.g., discussion on expert
level in specific Working group Meeting or mailing list), as these
have integrated better into IETF process and historically worked well
to expedite matters. In some cases, however, a more formal
communication is appropriate, either as an adjunct to the informal
channel or in its own place with or without liaison relationship. In
the case of formal communications, the established procedures of many
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
organizations use a form known as a "liaison statement". Procedures
for sending, managing, and responding to liaison statements are
discussed in [RFC4053].
Note that communications between organizations have no difference to
any other IETF contributions and should follow the same IETF process
and polices and should be open to everyone for inputs and
contributions, e.g., input discussion in specific working group in
the IETF.
3. Summary of IETF Liaison Manager Responsibilities
The main responsibility of the liaison manager is to ensure good and
formally correct communication between the organizations. This often
includes:
* Ensure received LSs are recorded and delivered to the relevant
groups.
* Ensure replies are sent in time or it is appropriately
communicated why a reply is delayed or not sent.
* Ensure liaison statements from the IETF adhere to the formal
requirements of the peer organization (e.g. formatting) and are
delivered to the appropriate groups.
* Provide additional communication on e.g. process or known
consensus positions in the IETF. This may also require
participation in relevant meetings of the peer organization and
potentially report back to the appropriate IETF organization any
material information that is intended to be shared by the peer
organization.
Formal messages from the IETF to the peer organization are usually
carried in liaison statements. In certain situations, the liaison
manager may carry addional messages, when specifically instructed.
However, if these communications aim to "represent the IETF", they
must have consensus, e.g. by being based on an RFC or some other
formal statement by a group within the IETF.
Optionally liaison manager may provide updates to the IAB on
technical matters. Especially if a concern e.g. regarding technical
overlap or incorrectness is detected this should be communicated to
the IAB. However, given most organization are quite large, it is not
expected that the liaison manager can have the full overview about
everything that is going on.
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
4. Security Considerations
The security of the Internet is not threatened by these procedures.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[BCP39] Best Current Practice 39,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp39>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
IAB and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Charter of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
Carpenter, B., Ed., "IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor
Model", BCP 39, RFC 9283, DOI 10.17487/RFC9283, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9283>.
[BCP9] Best Current Practice 9,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>.
Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.
Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>.
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.
Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475,
March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>.
Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.
Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3113] Rosenbrock, K., Sanmugam, R., Bradner, S., and J. Klensin,
"3GPP-IETF Standardization Collaboration", RFC 3113,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3113, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3113>.
[RFC3131] Bradner, S., Calhoun, P., Cuschieri, H., Dennett, S.,
Flynn, G., Lipford, M., and M. McPheters, "3GPP2-IETF
Standardization Collaboration", RFC 3131,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3131, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3131>.
[RFC3356] Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task
Force and International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunications Standardization Sector Collaboration
Guidelines", RFC 3356, DOI 10.17487/RFC3356, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3356>.
[RFC4052] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "IAB Processes for Management of
IETF Liaison Relationships", BCP 102, RFC 4052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4052, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4052>.
[RFC4053] Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for
Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF",
BCP 103, RFC 4053, DOI 10.17487/RFC4053, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4053>.
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IAB Liaison Management February 2025
Acknowledgments
[RFC4052] was authored by Leslie Daigle and developed as part of a
conversation regarding the management of [RFC4053], and the authors
of [RFC4053] contributed significantly to it as well.
This version of the document is based on [RFC4052] and brings it in
line with currently followed procedures. Further updates to all
parts of the text are expected in the process of gathering community
feedback for this document.
Authors' Addresses
Suresh Krishnan (editor)
IAB
Email: suresh.krishnan@gmail.com
Mirja Kuehlewind
IAB
Email: ietf@kuehlewind.net
Qin Wu
IAB
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Krishnan, et al. Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 9]