Subject: [Isis-wg] Message from the ITU

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:50:28 -0700

Hi Folks,

I'm forwarding the following message from the ITU.  I've reformatted it to
IETF-normal ASCII, so any subsequent noise is my fault.

Tony

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ITU - Telecommunication Standardization Sector	Annex S
Geneva, 10th May 2002

QUESTIONS:	Q.14/15
SOURCE:	Rapporteur
TITLE:	Communication Statement to IETF IS-IS Working Group on work on
	Integrated IS-IS on the DCN in Q.14/15
_____________
COMMUNICATION STATEMENT
TO:	IETF IS-IS Working Group
APPROVAL:	Agreed to at 29 April - 10 May 2002 SG15 meeting
FOR:	Information
DEADLINE:	None

CONTACT:	Hing-Kam Lam	Tel: 	+1-732-949-8338
101 Crawfords Corner Road	Fax:	+1-732-949-5055
Holmdel, NJ 07733, USA	Email:	[email-masked]

As requested by the chairman of the IETF IS-IS working group, Q.14/15 would
like to inform the IETF of the current work that Q.14/15 is doing on
recommendation G.7712 "Architecture and Specification of Data Communication
Network".  This contains the draft revision of G.7712 and is intended to be
consented at the next SG15 plenary in January 2003.

The particular sections that IS-IS WG may be interested for further
developments on IS-IS are: 

- Section 7.1.8 Network Layer PDU Encapsulation Function as well as Annex B
  for the Description of the Automatic Encapsulation Procedures 
- Section 7.1.10.1.1 Network-layer Protocol Aware Adjacency Creation
- Section 7.1.10.1 Integrated IS-IS requirements as well as Annex A on
  Requirements for Three-Way Handshaking
- Appendix III Commissioning guide for SDH NEs in dual RFC 1195 environment
  and impact of automatic Encapsulation option
- Appendix II Implementation Example of Automatic Encapsulation

The document is available as version 1.1 of G.7712 at the ITU-T public ftp
site for your information. The document may be obtained from
ftp://sg15opticalt:[email-masked]/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/index.html.
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: "Philip Christian"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:03:40 +0100

Please note that there is now a version 1.2 also at the same URL.

Version 1.1 is text that was agreed from the last ITU-T SG15 meeting, whilst
version 1.2 has no official status.
That said, I believe that version 1.2 is considerably easier to read.
The technical content is exactly the same across the two versions.

I would personally advice anyone interested in this work to head straight
for v1.2.

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Isis-wg] Message from the ITU

Hi Folks,

Tony

QUESTIONS:	Q.14/15
SOURCE:	Rapporteur

ftp://sg15opticalt:[email-masked]/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATION
S/index.html.

---

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:25:59 -0400

> The document is available as version 1.1 of G.7712 at the 
> ITU-T public ftp site for your information. The document 
> may be obtained from

I've had a brief look at Version 2.  I've noted some minor typos 
below, and have a couple of comments.  This is the wrong forum 
to reach the ITU, so perhaps these are misplaced.

	Appendix A includes a description of the 3-way handshake.
	The document refers to RFCs elsewhere, so I 
	assume that when the 3way handshake is an RFC, this
	Appendix will be replaced with a reference.  

	The ideas on auto-encapsulation of traffic to bridge 
	between OSI and IP networks seems frightfully clever,
	and I'm happy to point all further discussion of this
	topic to the ITU.  This looks like a fruitful source
	of future problems and networking PhDs.  

- jeff parker

Nits: 
p 37/38 This describes generation a ProtocolSupportedMismatch
if there -is- and adjacency, but there is no match, when 
a change in protocols supported forces a tear-down.  This
won't happen often.  

Should there also be provisions for an event if there isn't
an adjacency yet?

p. 38 'Manor' should be 'manner' in section 7.1.10.1.2.2.
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Jonathan Sadler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:55:01 -0500

Hi Jeff -

I'm a participant in the Q14/15 stuff, and can provide some insight on
your first comment.

>         Appendix will be replaced with a reference.

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 is the reason why Sec. 7.1.10.1.2 goes into such
excruciating detail describing how to do what is in RFC 2966.  The
mention of RFC 2966 in Sec 7.1.10.1.2 is purely informative, not
normative.

To be honest, I would prefer to see the ITU reference IETF RFCs instead
of including reworded text that implements the same thing that is in an
RFC.  Not only does it keep from efforts to rewrite all of the RFC (to
get past copyright issues), but it also makes certain that
implementations will interoperate.

Unfortunately, this issue will not go away until the IETF and JTC1
resolve 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: Les Ginsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:34:30 -0700

Having worked on the ISO 10589:2001 draft within ISO, I would be very
surprised to learn that ANSI thinks it  owns the IS-IS spec. As far as I
know it is owned by JTC1/SC6/WG7.

More importantly, your mail states that the reason IS-IS WG drafts are on
the Informational track is because the IETF does not own the IS-IS
specification and therefore does not feel it in its purview to define
extensions to the protocol which are "standards". If true, this would
suggest that it is necessary that either:

a)ISO have procedures to incorporate IS-IS WG RFCs into ISO documents
b)IETF be empowered to issue IS-IS extensions which are standards
c)IETF take ownership of the IS-IS standard

Having spoken to both IETF and ISO leadership on this issue, I have no
reason to think that any solution to this impasse acceptable to both sides
has been offered. 

Given that we have even more compelling reasons now to want to fix this, I
would hope that leadership on "all sides of the aisle" would find a way to
make Ran's fantasy come true.

   Les

> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 07:01 , Jonathan Sadler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 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]
>