Ownership and "cross-licensing" of protocols by working groups

[Brian E Carpenter]

Getting back to Charlie's point (because we *can't* reform other bodies,
but we *can* reform the IETF), isn't this in fact the same point that
is made in section 2.3:

>    o  The IETF is not consistently effective at resolving issues that
>       cross WG or area boundaries.
> 
>    o  The IETF does not posess effective formal mechanisms for inter-WG
>       cooperation, coordination or communication, including the handling
>       of dependencies between deliverables and processes specified in in
>       WG charters.
> 
>    o  The IETF does not have an effective means for defining
>       architectures and frameworks that will shape the work of multiple
>       WGs.

   Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
> Dear Graham,
> 
> In my opinion, the real danger isn't another standards body planning
> extensions to IETF protocols, it's another standards body dorking with
> IETF protocols. The problem with SIP and 3GPP wasn't that 3GPP
> extended SIP, it was that one group had headers classified as
> mandatory that the other did not, so that an application that was
> conformant for one group might send a request that an application
> conformant for the other group would consider malformed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I agree that if we solve some of the IETF
> problems, we'll probably get more work than if we don't, and that's
> especially true of the problem of committed interdependencies. I'm
> saying that the problem with interdependencies isn't just that
> interdependencies are harder, it's that interoperability is
> jeopardized.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <graham.travers at bt.com>
> To: <charliep at iprg.nokia.com>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 3:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Ownership and "cross-licensing" of protocols by working
> groups
> 
> Charlie,
> 
> I agree;  but this problem doesn't just apply to internal IETF WG
> relationships.  The more that IETF protocols are used for applications
> that are not strictly within the scope of the Internet, the more
> important this issue becomes.
> 
> Think about SIP and 3GPP.  I now hear that the OMA is planning
> extensions to SIP, which it has no intention of referring back to the
> IETF.  The IETF has to become more accommodating to the requirements
> of other organisations, or this sort of thing will happen more and
> more - and that's bad for ( nearly ) everyone.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Graham Travers
> 
> International Standards Manager
> BT Exact
> 
> e-mail:   graham.travers at bt.com
> tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
> mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
> fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087
> 
> HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK
> 
> BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc
> Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> Registered in England no. 1800000
> 
> This electronic message contains information from British
> Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or
> entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
> message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the
> numbers or address above) immediately.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charliep at iprg.nokia.com]
> Sent: 07 October 2003 03:18
> To: Problem Statement Working Group
> Subject: Ownership and "cross-licensing" of protocols by working
> groups
> 
> Hello again folks,
> 
> While reading section 2.3, I remembered a terrible problem
> with cross-working-group interactions.  Suppose that working
> group A standardizes protocol A, and that working group B
> needs the functionality of protocol A for the operation of the
> protocol that is to become protocol B.  One would think it should
> be natural for WG-B to build on the work within WG-A.  In fact,
> one would think that WG-A would actively encourage the work
> of WG-B.  Unfortunately, this obvious strategy fails in practice,
> for reasons that are unreasonably tedious and counterproductive
> to the point of daffiness.
> 
> What happens, is that WG-A can, and does, refuse to ratify
> even the most minor changes needed by WG-B.  Then, WG-B
> has to go back to the drawing boards, losing valuable time and/or
> features.
> 
> Specific areas where I have seen this occur include:
> - security(IPsec), and
> - neighborhood determination in IPv6
> I would be amazed if these are the only examples.
> 
> Therefore for self-preservation, an IETF working group
> should _never_ try to use a protocol for which it does not
> own complete change control.
> 
> Or else, we could have a statement by the IAB that mandated
> more flexibility by working groups whose outputs MIGHT be
> useful by someone else in the universe.  I exaggerate.  mea culpa.
> I get aggravated thinking about it.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc at zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK