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

[Spencer Dawkins]

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.