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: noneThe 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.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
