Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Message from the ITU

From: Jonathan Sadler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:01:24 -0500

Tony -

>  | Since the work in the IETF on IS-IS is limited to achiving Informational
>  | status, the ITU will never be able to use an IETF RFC as a normative
>  | reference.
> 
> This comment struck me as curious.  Are you saying that if IETF claimed to
> pass standards on IS-IS and put these RFCs on the standards track, that the
> ITU would be willing to reference them as Normative?

Correct.  Per RFC 2026, Informational documents are not considered
normative in the IETF.  Witness the following:

  "Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards
   evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the 'standards
   track'.  These maturity levels -- 'Proposed Standard', 'Draft
   Standard', and 'Standard' -- are defined and discussed in section
   4.1."
      --- (RFC2026, sec. 4)

  "Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled
   with one of three 'off-track' maturity levels:  'Experimental',
   'Informational', or 'Historic'.  The documents bearing these
   labels are not Internet Standards in any sense."
      --- (RFC2026, sec. 4.2)

> What is the reason for not referencing Informational RFC's as normative?
> They are fixed, published documents.

This is the policy specified by the IESG.  The ITU is only respecting
it.

This is why I wish that the IS-IS working group could have its drafts
achive Standards track.  Then they would be available as normative
references to other bodies, such as the ITU.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the IETF is sensative to JTC1's
"ownership" of IS-IS and therefore the RFCs are limited to Informational
status at best.

> Would it help if the IETF (and the authors of the RFC's) granted ITU
> rights of replication?

That question would be best answered by the governing bodies in the ITU,
not by me.  However, it may provide a short-term work around as the text
of an RFC could possibly be incorporated into an ITU recommendation.

Personally, I'd rather see the long term problem solved -- specifically
that IETF and JTC1 (and maybe also the ITU given G.7712v1.2 Appendix I
and II) reach agreement on how extensions to IS-IS should be progressed.

Jonathan Sadler
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged 
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:32:03 -0400

> "ownership" of IS-IS and therefore the RFCs are limited to Informational

IETF has asked (formally) ANSI, who apparently really are the standards
body for IS-IS under ISO (ANSI rather than JTC1) about handing over 
change control
to IETF.  Anecdotal (i.e. unconfirmed, possibly wrong) reports that I 
hear are
that ANSI either didn't respond or said "no we don't want to do that".

IETF is not publishing IS-IS stuff as standards-track because
change-control hasn't been handed over to IETF from ANSI.

Consequently, I find this whole thread a bit confusing.  Perhaps others 
also do.

A fantasy that occurs to me right now would be to get the IETF IS-IS
chairs, the applicable ANSI folks, the applicable JTC1 folks, and
the applicable ITU-T folks all in the same room -- with a goal of
trying to find some more productive process and path forwards
for all of us.

Ran
[email-masked]