GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:bcp:bcp103

Network Working Group S. Trowbridge Request for Comments: 4053 Lucent Technologies BCP: 103 S. Bradner Category: Best Current Practice Harvard University

                                                              F. Baker
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                            April 2005
  Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

 This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming
 liaison statements from other standards development organizations
 (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison
 statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and
 industry fora.  This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate
 with other organizations in the international standards community.
 The IETF expects that liaison statements might come from a variety of
 organizations, and it may choose to respond to many of those.  The
 IETF is only obligated to respond if there is an agreed liaison
 relationship, however.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
 2. Liaison Statements and Their Handling ...........................3
    2.1. Definitions ................................................3
    2.2. Liaison Statements .........................................4
         2.2.1. Contents of a Liaison Statement .....................4
                2.2.1.1. Envelope Information .......................4
                2.2.1.2. Liaison Content ............................5
    2.3. Addressee Responsibilities .................................6
    2.4. Lifetime of a Liaison Statement ............................7
 3. Tools for Handling Liaison Statements ...........................7
    3.1. Liaison Statements from Other SDOs, Consortia, and
         Fora to IETF ...............................................7
         3.1.1. Liaison Statement Submission ........................8
         3.1.2. Mechanism for Displaying Liaison Statements .........9
    3.2. Communicating IETF Information to Other SDOs,
         Consortia, and Fora ........................................9
         3.2.1. Spontaneously Generating Liaison Statements
                to Other ............................................9
                3.2.1.1. Transmitting IETF Documents to
                         Other Organizations .......................10
                3.2.1.2. Requests for Information ..................10
                3.2.1.3. Requesting Comments on Work in Progress ...11
                3.2.1.4. Requests for Other Actions
                         (Besides Comments on IETF Drafts) .........11
         3.2.2. Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements ..........11
                3.2.2.1. Responding to Requests for Information ....11
                3.2.2.2. Responding to Requests for Comments .......12
                3.2.2.3. Responding to Request for Action ..........12
                3.2.2.4. Generating Liaison Statements .............13
 4. Security Considerations ........................................13
 5. Acknowledgements ...............................................14
 A. Implementation Road map ........................................15
    A.1. Phase I: Initial Implementation ...........................15
         A.1.1.   Displays .........................................15
         A.1.2.   Actions on Submission ............................16
 B. Phase II: Additional Instrumentation and Responses to
    Usage Experience ...............................................17
 Normative References ..............................................17

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

1. Introduction

 This document describes the procedure for generating and handling
 liaison statements between the IETF and other SDOs, so that IETF can
 effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international
 standards community.  These liaison statements are primarily
 exchanged between IETF and organizations with whom the IAB has
 created a liaison relationship (see [RFC4052]), although other
 organizations are not precluded.  The procedures described in this
 document encompass all liaisons statements received from SDOs,
 whether or not a formal liaison arrangement is in place between the
 SDO and the IETF.  The IETF is not obligated to respond to the
 liaison statement where there is no formal liaison arrangement.
 The implementation of the procedure and supporting tools is occurring
 in a minimum of three phases.  The initial phase has been the
 development of a prototype (in the best tradition of "rough consensus
 and running code"), by Sunny Lee of Foretec, in parallel with the
 development of this specification.  The second phase is the
 conversion of that prototype to an operational tool.  This
 operational tool lacks an automated tracking tool; rather, the
 liaison manager implements it in his or her own way.  The third phase
 will include that tracking tool.
 The specific supporting tools and their functionality described in
 this document are one possible way of providing automated support for
 the processes described in this document.  Because specific tools and
 their functionality will change over time, the descriptions in this
 document are to be considered examples only and are not a normative
 part of this specification.

2. Liaison Statements and Their Handling

 Let us first define what a liaison statement is (and is not), and set
 reasonable expectations.  The expectations in this section are
 normative for a liaison statement sent by any SDO to the IETF.

2.1. Definitions

 For purposes of clarity, we use the following definitions:
 Addressee: The Working Group(s) (WG) or other party(s) in the IETF to
    whom a liaison statement is addressed.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 Assignee: The person responsible to act on a liaison statement,
    initially either the person to whom it was addressed or the chair
    of the group to which it was addressed.  The task may be
    reassigned to another person in the same or a different group as
    appropriate.
 Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the
    relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure
    that communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as
    defined by sections 2.2 and 3 in [RFC4052].
 Liaison statement: A letter as described in this document, exchanged
    between organizations.

2.2. Liaison Statements

 A Liaison Statement is a business letter sent by one standards
 organization to another.  These organizations may be at any level
 (WG, Area, etc.)   Generally, the sender and receiver are peer
 organizations.  A liaison statement may have any purpose, but
 generally the purpose is to solicit information, make a comment or
 request an action.

2.2.1. Contents of a Liaison Statement

 Liaison statements may be very formal or informal, depending on the
 rules of the body generating them.  Any liaison statement, however,
 will always contain certain information, much as an business letter
 does.  This information will include the following:

2.2.1.1. Envelope Information

 The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement.

2.2.1.1.1. From:

 The statement will indicate from what body it originates; for
 example, it may be from, an IETF WG or Area, an ITU-T Study Group,
 Working Party, or Question, etc.  In this document, this body is the
 "sender".

2.2.1.1.2. To:

 The statement will indicate to which body it is.  In this document,
 this body is the "addressee".

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

2.2.1.1.3. Title:

 The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of
 its context and content.

2.2.1.1.4. Response Contact:

 The sender will indicate the electronic mail address to which any
 response should be sent.

2.2.1.1.5. Technical Contact:

 The sender will indicate one or more electronic mail addresses
 (persons or lists) that may be contacted for clarification of the
 liaison statement.

2.2.1.1.6. Purpose:

 A liaison statement generally has one of three purposes and will
 clearly state its purpose using one of the following labels:
 For Information: The liaison statement is to inform the addressee of
    something, and expects no response.
 For Comment: The liaison statement requests commentary from the
    addressee, usually within a stated time frame.
 For Action: The liaison statement requests that the addressee do
    something on the sender's behalf, usually within a stated time
    frame.
 In Response: The liaison statement includes a response to a liaison
    statement from the peer organization on one or more of its
    documents and expects no further response.

2.2.1.1.7. Deadline:

 Liaison statements that request comment or action will indicate when
 the comment or action is required.  If the addressee cannot
 accomplish the request within the stated period, courtesy calls for a
 response offering a more doable deadline or an alternative course of
 action.

2.2.1.2. Liaison Content

 The following fields are the substance of the liaison statement.
 IETF participants use a wide variety of systems, thus document
 formats that are not universally readable are problematic.  As a

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 result, documents enclosed with the body or attachments should be in
 PDF, W3C HTML (without proprietary extensions), or ASCII text format.
 If they were originally in a proprietary format such as Microsoft
 Word, the file may be sent, but should be accompanied by a generally
 readable file.

2.2.1.2.1. Body:

 As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains
 appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand.

2.2.1.2.2. Attachments:

 Attachments, if enclosed, may be in the form of documents sent with
 the liaison statement or may be URLs to similar documents including
 Internet Drafts.

2.3. Addressee Responsibilities

 The responsibilities of the addressee of a liaison statement are the
 same as the responsibilities of any business letter.  A liaison
 statement calls for appropriate consideration of its contents, and if
 a reply is requested and an appropriate relationship exists, a
 courteous authoritative reply within the expected time frame.  The
 reply may be that the information was useful or not useful, that the
 requested action has been accomplished, it will be accomplished by a
 specified date, it will not be done for a specific reason, an answer
 to a question posed, or any other appropriate reply.
 A liaison statement, like any other temporary document, must be
 considered for its relevance, importance, and urgency.
 One hopes that a liaison statement will be sent to the right
 organization, but this cannot be assured.  An SDO might send a
 liaison statement to a specific IETF Area whose Area Director (AD)
 deems it better handled by one of the WGs, or it might be sent to one
 WG when it should have gone to another.  If a liaison statement
 arrives that appears misdirected, the assignee should promptly ask
 the liaison manager to redirect it appropriately.  In some cases, a
 liaison statement may require consideration by multiple groups within
 the IETF; in such cases, one assignee takes the lead and
 responsibility for developing a response.
 Liaison Statements are always important to the body that sent them.
 Having arrived at the appropriate body, the liaison statement may be
 more or less important to the addressee depending on its contents and
 the expertise of the sender.  If the liaison statement seeks to
 influence the direction of a WG's development, it should receive the

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 same consideration that any temporary document receives.  The WG
 chair may request the sender's contacts to make their case to the
 IETF WG in the same manner that an author of an internet draft makes
 his or her case.
 The urgency of a liaison statement is usually reflected in its
 deadline.  A liaison statement for informational purposes may have no
 deadline; in such a case, a courteous "thank you" liaison statement
 is necessary to inform the sender that the liaison statement was
 received.  The WG may then inform itself of the contents and close
 the document.  A liaison statement specifying a deadline, however,
 gives the addressee a finite opportunity to influence the activity of
 another body; if it fails to react in a timely fashion, it may miss
 the opportunity.

2.4. Lifetime of a Liaison Statement

 A liaison statement is a temporary document, much like an internet
 draft.  If it affects IETF output, the normal expectation is that the
 resulting RFC will contain relevant information that remains
 pertinent.  Retaining liaison statements that have been completely
 dealt with mostly serves to hide new ones and create the appearance
 of not dealing with them.
 However, unlike an internet draft, liaison statements are often the
 only record the IETF has of the communication with the peer SDO.  As
 such, some liaison statements are referred to for relatively long
 periods of time.
 As a result, the IETF will archive liaison statements that have been
 fully dealt with, along with any attachments that may have been
 relevant, but do so in a manner obviously distinct from current
 liaison statements.

3. Tools for Handling Liaison Statements

 Some tools have been developed for the IETF.  Development is expected
 to continue.  This section describes the basic tool and its intended
 use.

3.1. Liaison Statements from Other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora to IETF

 The process of handling a liaison statement is more weighty than
 handling a business letter because it is important to a relationship
 with another SDO established by the IAB.  To manage liaison
 statements, the IETF will offer three electronically accessible
 facilities: a form for submission of liaison statements, a mechanism
 organizing their contents and making them accessible, and a tracking

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 system.  Initially, the tracking system will be a manual procedure
 used by the liaison manager; in the future, this should be automated.

3.1.1. Liaison Statement Submission

 The IETF Secretariat will provide an electronic method for submission
 of liaison statements.
 The liaison statement submission mechanism is a form that requests
 the information listed in Section 2.2.1 from the user.
 Submission of that information results in the following actions:
 o  creation of a display mechanism containing the envelope data in
    Section 2.2.1.1 and URLs pointing to the items from
    Section 2.2.1.2, an indication whether the liaison statement has
    been replied to, and if so, on what date,
 o  the addition of a URL to the "outstanding liaison statements"
    summary mechanism,
 o  when an automated tracking system has been implemented, a tickler/
    status entry in the tracking system, assigned to the relevant
    chair or AD,
 o  an email to the assignee copying
  • the liaison statement's technical contacts
  • The supervisor of the assignee (if it is to a WG, the relevant

ADs; if to an AD, the IETF Chair),

  • The liaison manager for the sending SDO,
  • an alias associated with the assignee (WG/BOF or other open

mailing list, Area Directorate, IESG, IAB, etc.)

    This email should contain the URL to the liaison statement
    mechanism, text indicating that the liaison statement has arrived,
    requests appropriate consideration, and if a deadline is
    specified, a reply by the deadline.
 The assignee has the capability of interacting with the liaison
 manager and the tracking system (once implemented), including
 replying, changing dates, reassignment, closing the liaison statement
 process, etc.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 The liaison manager or tracking system's "tickle" function
 periodically reminds the assignee by email that the liaison statement
 has not yet been closed.  This tickle email copies all of the above
 except the associated mailing alias.

3.1.2. Mechanism for Displaying Liaison Statements

 The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement
 activity.  This consists of:
 o  A submission mechanism,
 o  A status/management mechanism for each active or recently closed
    liaison statement, and zero or more associated files.
 The status/management mechanism contains a simple frame, showing the
 title of the liaison statement, the URL for its mechanism, and the
 organizations it is from and to.
 The display for liaison statement itself contains:
 o  the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1),
 o  direct content (Section 2.2.1),
 o  URLs for the various associated files
 o  current status of the liaison statement: to whom it is assigned,
    its due date, and its status,
 o  pointer to the liaison manager and tracking system entry for the
    liaison statement.
 o  reply-generation mechanism (see Section 3.2.2.4)

3.2. Communicating IETF Information to Other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora

 This includes liaison statements sent in reply to liaison statements
 sent by other bodies, and liaison statements being originated by the
 IETF.

3.2.1. Spontaneously Generating Liaison Statements to Other

      Organizations
 Liaison Statements can be generated at a WG, Area, or IETF level to
 another organization.  The respective (co)chair(s) are responsible
 for judging the degree of consensus for sending the particular

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 liaison statement and deciding the content.  The amount of consensus
 required to send a liaison statement varies greatly depending on its
 content.  This section gives some rough guidance about how much
 consensus should be sought before sending a liaison statement to
 another organization.

3.2.1.1. Transmitting IETF Documents to Other Organizations

 The simplest case of approving sending of a liaison statement from
 IETF is when the information being transmitted consists of an IETF
 document that has some level of agreement within the IETF.  The
 process that the document has already gone through to achieve its
 current status assures the necessary level of consensus.  Any
 Standards Track RFC (Draft Standard, Proposed Standard, Internet
 Standard, BCP), and any WG document expected to be placed on the
 standards track, may be transmitted without concern.
 Informational documents may also be exchanged readily when they
 represent a WG position or consensus, such as a requirements or
 architecture document.
 In all cases, the document status must be appropriately noted.  In
 the case of a WG Internet Draft, it must be clear that the existence
 of the draft only indicates that the WG has accepted the work item
 and, as the standard disclaimer says, the actual content can be
 treated as nothing more than Work in Progress.
 Individually submitted Internet Drafts, Experimental or Historical
 RFCs, and non-WG informational documents should not be transmitted
 without developing further consensus within the relevant group, as
 these documents cannot be truthfully represented as any kind of IETF
 position.

3.2.1.2. Requests for Information

 Another type of liaison statement that can be generated without the
 need for extensive consensus building on the email list is a request
 for information.  The (co)chairs(s) can generate such a liaison
 statement when they recognize, from the activities of the group, that
 some additional information is helpful, for example, to resolve an
 impasse (i.e., don't waste time arguing over what the real meaning or
 intent of another SDOs document is, just ask the other SDO and base
 further work on the "official" answer).
 Other requests for information may request access to certain
 documents of other organizations that are not publicly available.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

3.2.1.3. Requesting Comments on Work in Progress

 There may be cases when one feels that a document under development
 in the IETF may benefit from the input of experts in another relevant
 SDO, consortium, or forum.  Generally, this is done before the text
 is "fully cooked" so that input from experts in another organization
 can be included in the final result.  Comments would generally be
 solicited for a standards track WG Internet Draft and some level of
 consensus should be reached on the WG or other open mailing list that
 it is appropriate to ask another organization for comments on an IETF
 draft.

3.2.1.4. Requests for Other Actions (Besides Comments on IETF Drafts)

 There are many other kinds of actions that might reasonably be
 requested of another organization:
 o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another
    organization, a request could be made that the other organization
    change something to align with the IETF work.
 o  A request could be made for another organization to start a new
    work item (on behalf of IETF).
 o  A request could be made for another organization to stop a work
    item (presumably because it overlaps or conflicts with other work
    in the IETF).
 These kinds of requests are quite serious.  They can certainly be
 made when appropriate, but should only be made when there is the
 clearest possible consensus within the particular WG, Area, or within
 the IETF at large.

3.2.2. Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements

 Any incoming liaison statement that indicates that it is for
 "Comment" or for "Action" requires a response by the deadline; other
 liaison statements may also be replied to, although a reply is
 generally optional.  It is the responsibility of the (co)chair(s) of
 the addressed organization to ensure that a response is generated by
 the deadline.

3.2.2.1. Responding to Requests for Information

 If another organization requests information that can be found in an
 IETF document of the types indicated in Section 3.2.1.1, this can be
 transmitted by the (co)chair(s) of the addressed group, indicating
 the level of agreement for the relevant document.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

3.2.2.2. Responding to Requests for Comments

 If an incoming liaison statement requests comments on a document from
 another organization, a discussion will occur on the mailing list
 where participants can provide their comments.
 If a clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments made to
 the mailing list, the (co)chair(s) can summarize the conclusions in a
 reply liaison statement back to the originating organization.
 If no clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments on the
 mailing list, or if there is no further discussion, a response is
 still due to the originator.  A summary of the email comments, or
 lack of interest in the issue, should be created and sent to the
 originator, and represented as "collected comments" rather than a
 consensus of the IETF group to which the liaison statement was
 addressed.  It is possible to send this kind of a reply even if some
 of the comments are contradictory.

3.2.2.3. Responding to Request for Action

 A request for Action is a fairly serious thing.  Examples of the
 kinds of actions that may be expected are:
 o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another
    organization, another organization may request that the IETF align
    its work with that of the other organization.
 o  A request could be made for IETF to undertake a new work item.
 o  A request could be made for IETF to stop a work item (presumably
    because it overlaps or conflicts with other work in the
    originating organization).
 Consensus of the receiving group within IETF is clearly necessary to
 fulfill the request.  Fulfilling the request may require a great deal
 of time and multiple steps, for example, if initiating or stopping a
 work item requires a charter change.
 There is, of course, no requirement that IETF perform the action that
 was requested.  But the request should always be taken seriously, and
 a response is required.  The originating organization must always be
 informed of what, if anything, the IETF has decided to do in response
 to the request.  If the IETF decides not to honor the request, or to
 honor it with modifications, the response should include the reasons
 and, if applicable, the alternate course of action.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 For tasks that require a great deal of time, it may be necessary that
 several liaison statements be sent back to the originating
 organization to report the status of the work and the anticipated
 completion time.  The first of these liaison statements must be
 generated by the deadline indicated in the incoming liaison
 statement.

3.2.2.4. Generating Liaison Statements

 IETF participants, usually WG chairs, ADs, or other officials, need
 to be able to send liaison statements to other SDOs.  The mechanism
 described in Section 3.1.2, listing appropriate contacts in other
 SDOs with which the IAB has established liaison relationships,
 provides that capability.
 As a convenience, the liaison statement page described in
 Section 3.1.2 may be used to generate a reply.  If a person (usually
 a WG chair or an AD) selects "reply", a new liaison statement page is
 generated from the existing one, reversing the addressing
 information.  IETF documents should be referenced by URL, such as
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>file< or
 ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>file<.
 The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison
 statements is a matter of IETF process and is specified in [RFC4052].

4. Security Considerations

 One of the key considerations in developing this process has been the
 possibility of a denial of service attack on the IETF and its
 processes.  Historically, the IETF has not always handled liaison
 statements effectively, resulting in people working in other
 organizations becoming frustrated with it.  Various organizations
 have also used the liaison statement process to impose deadlines on
 IETF activities, which has been frustrating for all concerned - the
 IETF because it does not accept such deadlines, and other
 organizations because they feel ignored.
 For this reason the submission process is automated.  While the IETF
 cannot rate-limit the submitters, it can manage its internal
 pipelines.
 This issue is exacerbated by the lack of any authentication on the
 part of the submitter.  However, the IAB considers it important to be
 able to accept liaison statements whether or not a liaison
 relationship exists, so authentication of submitters is not an
 effective control.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

5. Acknowledgements

 This text has been prompted by discussions with numerous individuals
 within IETF and other SDOs and fora, including Gary Fishman and Bert
 Wijnen.  It has been developed in cooperation with [RFC4052], which
 is to say with the express cooperation of the chair of the IAB,
 Leslie Daigle.  Personal experiences and some "miscues" in
 coordinating work across ITU-T Study Group 15 and the IETF Sub-IP
 Area have also motivated this work.  Some drafts addressing
 individual problems (for example, RFC 3427) make it clear that a more
 general, consistent solution is needed for dealing with outside
 organizations.  Certain ideas have been borrowed from these texts.
 Barbara Fuller, Sunny Lee, and Michael Lee developed a prototype and
 commented in detail on the document.  Their inputs directly resulted
 in the appendices describing the implementation road map.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

Appendix A. Implementation Road Map

 This section documents the development program as of the time of the
 writing of this document.  It is not normative.

A.1. Phase I: Initial Implementation

A.1.1. Displays

 The descriptions of the required displays in Section 3.1.1 and
 Section 3.1.2 call for two sets of displays: one for the public (for
 viewing liaison statements), and one for submitters (for managing
 liaison statements).
 Displays for public view of liaison statements include:
 o  A Liaison Statements Web page that lists all incoming and outgoing
    liaison statements (specific fields TBD).  The title of each
    liaison statement is a link to the details page for that liaison
    statement.
 o  A detail page for each liaison statement that contains:
  • All of the information specified in the subsections of

Section 2.2.1.

  • Links to all attachments that accompanied the liaison statement

or to documents that are mentioned in the statement but were

       not provided as part of the submission.
  • Links to all related liaison statements (e.g., replies).
 Displays for submitting and managing liaison statements include:
 o  A summary page that offers mechanisms for:
  • Creating and submitting a new liaison statement.
  • Editing a liaison statement that the user has previously

created and submitted.

  • Acting on a liaison statement that has been assigned to the

user.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

 o  A template for creating and submitting a liaison statement.  This
    template allows the user to enter the information specified in
    Section 2.2.1.  The user is able to access the template at any
    time (from a list of liaison statements that the user has
    previously created and submitted), and update and resubmit the
    information.
 o  A detail page for managing a liaison statement assigned to the
    user.  This page is similar to the details page available to the
    public.  However, it also includes:
  • A mechanism for replying to the liaison statement (initial

implementation)

  • A link to a liaison statement tracking mechanism (future

implementation)

A.1.2. Actions on Submission

 Submission of a liaison statement results in the following actions:
 o  The information is uploaded to the database.
 o  An e-mail message with the content specified in Section 3.1.1 is
    sent to the addressee with copies to the addresses specified in
    Section 4.1, and to the Secretariat (as specified in [RFC4052]).
 o  The liaison statement is added to the list on the Liaison
    Statements Web page.
 o  Two detail pages are created for the liaison statement: one for
    the public (to view the liaison statement), and one for the sender
    and the assignee (to manage the liaison statement).
 As specified in Section 3.2.2.4, when a user selects reply on the
 details page of a liaison statement, a template for creating and
 submitting a new liaison statement is generated from the existing one
 that copies "From" to "To" and specifies the respondent as the
 individual the response is coming "From".  Submission of this reply
 liaison statement results in the same set of actions as submission of
 any new liaison statement.  In addition, a link to the details page
 of this liaison statement is added to the list of related liaison
 statements on the details pages (both public and management) of the
 original liaison statement (i.e., the one to which the user replied).

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

Appendix B. Phase II: Additional Instrumentation and Responses to Usage

           Experience
 This section is for information, and is not normative.
 The intended features of the future liaison statement tracking system
 are discussed in Section 3.1.  They include mechanisms for:
 o  Designating an assignee; the assignee is initially a person
    associated with the body (IAB, IESG, Area, WG, etc.) to which the
    liaison statement is addressed, but may subsequently be changed by
    an IETF participant.
 o  Indicating the status of the liaison statement (e.g., actions
    required, actions taken, etc.  Specific options TBD).
 o  Sending ticklers to the assignee when action is required (with
    copies to whomever is appropriate).
 o  Changing the status of the liaison statement, the deadline, or
    other attributes.
 o  Reassigning responsibility.
 o  Closing the liaison statement.

Normative References

 [RFC4052]  Daigle, L., "IAB Processes for Management of Liaison
            Relationships", RFC 4052, April 2005.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 17] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

Authors' Addresses

 Stephen J. Trowbridge
 Lucent Technologies
 1200 West 120th Avenue, Suite 232, Room 34Z07
 Westminster, Colorado  80234-2795
 USA
 Phone: +1 303 920 6545
 Fax:   +1 303 920 6553
 EMail: sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
 Scott Bradner
 Harvard University
 29 Oxford St.
 Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138
 USA
 Phone: +1 617 495 3864
 Fax:   +1 617 492 8835
 EMail: sob@harvard.edu
 Fred Baker
 Cisco Systems
 1121 Via Del Rey
 Santa Barbara, California  93117
 USA
 Phone: +1-408-526-4257
 Fax:   +1-413-473-2403
 EMail: fred@cisco.com

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 18] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 19]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/bcp/bcp103.txt · Last modified: 2005/04/25 18:46 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki