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

[graham.travers at bt.com]

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.