Subject: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IETF and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:40:17 -0800

Folks-

 Below is the announcement of the IETF Last Call for the draft
 text of the agreement between IETF and ISO/IEC JTC1 on ISIS.

 The text is a product of a many-month process involved discussions
 with JTC1 SC6 management, IESG and IAB. The ISIS WG chairs were also
 asked to review the early versions of the document. The latest
 version of the text found in the document has been discussed at the
 SC6 UK meeting that happened this month. I've been informed that
 UK will support this agreement and will bring it to the SC6 plenary
 meeting in London in Feb.

 Please review the text of the agreement. Because of the complex
 coordination process with another standards development organization,
 which involves huge delays, I'd like to ask folks to bring up only
 really important issues, so that we minimize the changes to the text
 as much as possible. When sending comments, please cc [email-masked]
 and [email-masked].

 I would also like us to discuss this agreement at the ISIS WG
 meeting in Atlanta. Tonys, please allocate a time slot for this.

 Thank you!
 
-- 
Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: 
Cc: 
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 1:49:02 PM
Subject: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IETF and SO/IEC  JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational

===8<==============Original message text===============

    This Internet-Draft documents proposes text of an agreement between
    ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 regarding cooperative development of
    the IS-IS routing protocol extensions.

    For a long time there has been no guidelines on how the two
    organizations should work together and separate their IS-IS related
    work scopes. This resulted in a confusion where the IETF did not
    put Internet-related extensions of the protocol on its standards
    track, and there was no authority maintaining the IS-IS namespace.
    The agreement between the two organizations is an attempt to
    resolve this situation.

    This Internet-Draft does not propose any changes to IETF processes
    or priorities. It describes (among other things) how the IETF
    processes are applied to the IS-IS protocol extensions. The IESG is
    issuing this Last-Call for review by the IETF community to ensure
    that the community is comfortable with the description of the
    proposed collaboration between the two organizations.

    Please send any comments to the [email-masked] or [email-masked]
    mailing lists by November 29, 2002.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zinin-ietf-jtc1-aggr-00.txt

===8<===========End of original message text===========

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:57:32 -0800

A small clarification (thanks to Jeff for asking): positive result of
the LC will not mean immediate publication of the agreement as an Info
RFC, but that the community is comfortable with ISOC/IETF signing this
agreement with JTC1. Once/if it is signed, the text will be published
as Info RFC for information to the community.

Again, we'll walk through the agreement in detail in Atlanta.

-- 
Alex

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:27:42 +0100

>Again, we'll walk through the agreement in detail in Atlanta.

actually, looks good to me and almost everything said in the doc makes 
sense.
The only point would be the (if we ever decide to
resurrect it) encapsulation into IP (or maybe even any other e.g. sub-IP 
stuff).
That would be ISO work based on this document so
maybe you want to think whether you want to give up control here. To be 
clear,
saying that I am taking my
draft author hat off here (hey, maybe I would even get to go to some swanky
ISO meeting places if it gets submitted to ISO ;-) and thinking as IP 
biggot ...
   
    thanks

    -- tony

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:31:46 -0800

Tony,

  Thanks for the comment!

  I think the case of IP encapsulation could potentially be mapped to
  2.2 b) as a supplementary encapsulation technique, provided that we
  make it clear that the problem is Internet-specific, we're talking
  exclusively about IP-enabled implementations in specific deployment
  scenarios, and not trying to generally change IS-IS encapsulation,
  which would affect existing dual implementations.

  I don't think we could really provide perfect generic guidelines for
  this type of "on-the-border" cases where we step on each other's
  toes, as they will anyways need to be considered on a case-by-case
  basis, most probably involving both IETF and JTC SC6 management to
  eliminate possible misunderstanding.

-- 
Alex

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:53:40 +0100

>  which would affect existing dual implementations.
ok, as long that's clear on both sides ...

    thanks

    -- tony

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:04:40 -0800

Tony,

> ok, as long that's clear on both sides ...

As Jeff privately suggested, maybe we should have some words about
such questionable situations.

Alex