Draft proposal For ITU Agreement

Tom-PT Taylor taylor at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Thu May 18 08:17:17 EDT 2000

Thanks for your quick read.  Comments below.  I am copying the SG 16 list so
they can comment too.  The original document Chip commented on is Osaka

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Sharp [SMTP:chsharp at CISCO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:03 PM
        [PTT]  ... >
> >Scope of Agreement
> >
> >This agreement covers work on the evolution of the Megaco/H.248 base
> >protocol and on development of Megaco/H.248 packages.  With limitations,
> it
> >also covers work on the application of Recommendation H.248.  The initial
> >parties to this agreement are ITU-T Study Group 16 and the ISOC Vice
> >President of Standards on behalf of the IETF Megaco Working Group.  Other
> >Study Groups and other IETF  Working Groups may join the agreement by
> >notifying the existing parties and the ISOC Vice President of Standards.
> The ISOC VP of Standards is listed as an initial party.  Does it need to
> be
> spelled out here?
        I'll cut the last sentence short after "... notifying the existing

> Should the Megaco Working Group be listed as an initial party in its own
> right?
        Legal/procedural constraints at the ITU-T end make the present form
necessary, I think.

> Is there a contact for SG16 or do we notify all of SG16?
        I'm waiting to find this out.  You'll notice I left this blank later

> >Other organizations may be accepted into and subscribe to part or all of
> >this agreement through consent of the existing parties to the agreement.
> As parties are added to the agreement, do new parties have to notify all
> the existing parties as of the time of notification or just SG16 and ISOC
> VP of Standards?  And how is consent defined (consensus)?
        I'd propose unanimous consent, which also answers your notification
question.   If groups want to craft side-agreements they're always free to
do so.  Note these are parties other than ITU-T SGs and IETF WGs.  I'll add
text to cover notification in the case of these latter.

> >Objective
> >
> >The objective of this procedure is to ensure continued cooperation in and
> >coordination of the work of standardization related to media gateway
> >control.
> Is this specific to H.248/Megaco or is something larger envisioned?
        It wouldn't hurt to say that it is specific to H.248/Megaco, since
that's what the rest of this document talks about.  I do hope that some of
the principles in the agreement as finally negotiated are useful in other

> >Duty Of Notice
> >
> >Each party undertakes to notify the other (s) whenever it proposes to
> begin
> >work on
> >? a new version of the Megaco/H.248 base protocol;
> >? a new Megaco/H.248 package;
> >? a new Megaco/H.248 profile;
> >? an application of the Megaco/H.248 protocol within the context of other
> >standardization work.
> The last item is a little confusing.  Could you clarify?  Does this mean
> that anytime a standards group wants to use H.248 for something it has to
> notify all the parties to this agreement, even if it doesn't mean changing
> the protocol?
        Yes, that's what I mean.  The reason is so everyone is better aware
of emerging requirements.

> >Notification to ITU-T Study Group 16 shall be by ...
> This seems incomplete. :-)
> I would assume that notification to SG16 will be similar to that for
> Megaco
> (i.e., email to the SG16 chair or to the SG16 mail list).
> Please keep in mind that SG16 has two email lists.  An official one from
> itu.int  that noone seems to use and an unofficial one hosted by intel.com
> that is used by everybody.
        From a technical/legal point of view, SG16 has two choices: the
responsible Rapporteur(s) or the Chair.  Definitely not the list.  Anyway,
it's for them to say.

> >Notification to the IETF Megaco Working Group may be by E-mail to its
> Chair,
> >but is preferably by E-mail to the Working Group E-mail list.  Copies of
> all
> >notifications to Megaco or from Megaco shall be sent to the ISOC Vice
> >President of Standards, in accordance with procedures agreed between ISOC
> >and the ITU-T.
> What are these procedures?   Please describe the procedures or provide a
> reference.
        I think they are described fully in Recommendation A.5.

> >Modes Of Cooperation
> >
> >This agreement foresees three modes of cooperation: "Joint Development",
> >"Formal Comment", and "Informal Comment".  These are defined as follows.
> >
> >In "Joint Development" mode, the parties undertake to form a single team
> of
> >experts from the inception of the work concerned.  The final output will
> be
> >published both as an ITU-T Recommendation and one or more standards-track
> >RFCs.  Prior to ITU-T determination, the work shall be advanced both at
> >meetings of the respective organizations and, between meetings, through
> >discussion on the applicable IETF Working Group E-mail list.  Each party
> >shall nominate an Editor.  Editors shall cooperate to ensure a common
> stream
> >of documentation into the formal process of each party.  [Proposed: to
> ease
> >the production of IETF documents, documentation shall use the IETF Word
> >template until formally submitted to ITU-T determination.]  Subsequent to
> >ITU-T determination, the process followed shall be the same as described
> >below for the "Formal Comment" mode.
> Does this preclude joint development of Information RFCs, Experimental
> RFCs, ITU Supplements, Implementor's Guides, etc.?
        Yes, it seems to, but it probably should not.  Good catch.  I think
the essential points are joint participation from the beginning, mutual
consent to the results (a point raised in discussion here), and joint
publication allowing for the full operation of applicable process in each
organization.  I'll make the text less specific to reflect this.  I may add
suggestions for promoting greater continuity in the process -- I wonder if
more extensive use of joint ITU-T/IETF design teams and more careful
recording and presentation of the rationale for ITU-T design decisions might
have helped.

> Is there any guideline that the I-D has gone to "WG Last Call" before SG16
> (or other SG) determines that the text is sufficiently mature to apply the
> approval procedures (FYI, verbiage taken from Section 8.3.1 of Resolution
> 1)?
> It seems this was one of the big problems we ran into the first time
> around.
> There has got to be something in here about synching up WG last call and
> this determination.
        I cover this in the next paragraph (Formal Comment mode), but maybe
I have the synchronization point wrong.  You argue the point below, so I'll
respond there.

> >In "Formal Comment" mode, development of the standard is the task of a
> >single party to this agreement (the "initiating party") up to the point
> of
> >formal progression of the standard.  This point is reached in the ITU-T
> when
> >the document has been determined.  It is reached in the IETF when Working
> >Group Last Call is announced.  At that point, the document shall be
> >forwarded to the other organization(s) for comment.  The initiating party
> >agrees to allow the other organization(s) sufficient time to complete a
> >formal process of comment  [people may want this spelled out] before the
> >initiating party completes its own process of formal review, and agrees
> to
> >take the  comments of the other organization(s) into account in
> determining
> >the final contents of the document concerned.  ***The parties to this
> >agreement agree that subsequent to determination or commencement of
> Working
> >Group Last Call respectively, the only changes permitted in the document
> >will be to provide clarifications and corrections of errors.***
> To meet the general case, the technical comments from the non-ITU group
> MUST be taken into account before determination to apply the approval
> process.  The above wording is a little vague on this.  In the second
> sentence, perhaps you should change "has been determined" to "is ready to
> be determined."
        I had in mind that WG Last Call is begun only when design seems to
be stable.  Hence the proper sequence is determination followed by WG Last
Call.  Neither should happen before all requirements have been understood
and accounted for.  One reason for putting Last Call after determination is
to meet a concern on the ITU-T side that the IETF might never converge if
they weren't faced with the sort of finite time limits the ITU process

        A point that came up in discussion here: final decision for "Formal
Comment" documents should be that of the initiating party, rather than
mutual consent.

> Also, is the IESG/IETF going to agree that only clarifications and
> corrections of errors will be allowed in IETF Last Call and IESG
> review?  The interpretation of "clarifications and corrections of errors."
> can deviate widely between groups.
        It has worked in the current cycle.  Anyway, I'm sure they'll put
their own imprint on this before it gets put into play, so they can speak
for themselves.

> >In "Informal Comment" mode, members of other organizations are invited to
> >provide comments to the initiating party during the process of
> development
> >of the document concerned.  At the option of the initiating party, the
> draft
> >document may be freely disclosed to other parties at any given stage, or
> >access to the document may be restricted to the membership of the
> initiating
> >party.
> If there is going to be any comment or agreement between the groups, the
> distribution of the documentation and procedure for providing comments has
> to be available to all the IETF.
> Open availability of documentation should be a non-negotiable term of the
> agreement.  This should be made clear for each mode.
> For IETF this is easy.  For ITU, this is no different than just sending an
> email to the IETF mail list saying that they are working on a draft
> Recommendation and if you are an ITU Sector Member you can comment.
        You're right on this last.  It may be that it's not worth mentioning
the "Informal Comment" mode.  The key point is not to require the ITU to
make any document which refers to H.248 freely available -- only those which
contribute to the evolution of the protocol itself.

> >Applicability Of Development Modes
> >All work on the evolution of the Megaco/H.248 base protocol shall follow
> the
> >Joint Development mode, with the IETF Megaco Working Group as one of the
> >cooperating parties.
> >
> >Work on Megaco/H.248 packages shall normally follow the Formal Comment
> mode.
> >Any party has the right to invoke Joint Development mode for specific
> >packages.
> Does this mean that if SG16 decides to develop a package, an IETF WG can
> invoke Joint Development and force SG16 into Joint Development?
        That's what it means, and vice versa.  There was some question about
this in discussion here -- Christian Groves wasn't comfortable with the
implications for work SG 11 is doing on Q.BICC.  Of course, they may find it
preferable to negotiate a different agreement with us, but we'll see.
Christian's concern was that IETFers might not have the necessary background
to understand packages SG 11 was developing, and providing that background
in the form of additional documents would cost the ITU revenue.

        Another point that came up here was that any party should have the
right to decline to comment on a specific package (e.g. where they feel it
lies beyond their realm of expertise).

> Other parties or organizations may want to develop packages that are not
> parties to this agreement.  I believe the IANA Considerations section
> allows this.  I assume the above only applies to the parties to the
> agreement.

> >All other Megaco/H.248-related work shall normally follow the Informal
> >Comment mode.  At the option of the initiating party another mode may be
> >followed.
> >
> >Rights Of Publication
> >
> >All parties have the right to publish documents produced either through
> >Joint Development or Formal Comment mode.
> >
> >Termination And Modification Of Agreement
> >
> >Any party may withdraw from this agreement on one year's notice.
> >Modifications may be made to this agreement at any time by mutual consent
> of
> >the agreeing parties.
> Just curious.  Why one year?
        Just to clear the pipeline of work in progress.  Could spell that
out instead of assigning a specific time period, I suppose.

> ...snip...
> BTW, it is likely that ITU procedures for approving recommendations is
> going to change dramatically by the end of the year.  Therefore, a new
> agreement will need to be written that applies the ITU's new approval
> process.  The drafts of the process I've seen includes a Last Call-type
> procedure.  This may make it a lot easier to synch up the last call
> procedures.  Hopefully, it will also get rid of the rush to decide a
> document in a specific meeting because the next chance won't be for 9
> months.  In addition, there is the chance SG16 may not be called SG16 next
> year.  The ITU is restructuring the study groups and they may be split
> apart, recombined and/or renumbered.  Old ones may go away and new ones
> may
> form (e.g., an IMT-2000 specific study group).  This should be resolved by
> October after the WTSA meeting in September.
        All good points.  We'll have to reconsider all this when the dust
settles, but in the meantime it gets some ideas on the table.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chip Sharp                 CTO Consulting Engineering
> Cisco Systems
> Reality - Love it or Leave it.
> http://www.netaid.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000518/c0cf2d50/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list