wdiff draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-01.txt

Network Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Ericsson Inc
Intended status: Standards Track BCP D. Ward
Expires: March 8, 9, 2010 Cisco Systems
M. Betts
Huaweil
A. Farrel
Huawei
September 8, 9, 2009

Joint

IETF and ITU-T Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Transport Profile process

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt (MPLS-TP) Document Process

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-01.txt

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2010.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

The decision to develop a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) in cooperation between the IETF and the
ITU-T does not
fully define and is document processes for development in RFC 5317 as the decision of the required
RFCs. Joint Working
Team on MPLS-TP.

This document complements provides additional detail of the processes documented in for the JWT
decision with a few separate elements; it:

o
development of IETF RFCs on MPLS-TP. It provides an adaptation of the
IETF working group process,

o process; identifies the expected participation in
the process by the ITU-T,

o ITU-T; and clarifies the decision rules and conventions
regarding MPLS-TP documents.

This document is doe not intended to specify any ITU-T process; to the
extent necessary ITU-T activities
will be done according to ITU-T process/rules.

Nor is this

This document is intended to does not specify or modify the normal IETF working
group
process, it process. It is limited to the temporary specific adaptations of that
process
that is to facilitate the cooperation agreement between the result of that IETF and ITU-T accepted the proposal in
the JWT report to jointly develop
the MPLS Transport Profile. In
general it may be said that these adaptations are introduced ITU-T on MPLS-TP, and to ensure a good and consistent document
review across the two organizations.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................. 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................... 4
1.1.1. IETF terms Terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Abbreviations .......................... 4
1.1.2. ITU-T terms Terms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Abbreviations ......................... 6
1.2. Purpose and Intent of Cooperation on MPLS-TP .............. 6
2. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . . . 7 Working Group Process .................. 8
2.1. Adaptation of the IETF working group process . . . . . . . 7 Consensus and Mailing Lists .......................... 8
2.2. Communications with the ITU-T ............................. 8
2.3. Adapted IETF Working Group Process ........................ 9
2.3.1. Flow Chart ............................................ 9
2.3.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Developing a Process ............................. 11
2.4. Naming Conventions for MPLS-TP document . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Documents ................. 15
3. Expectations on ITU-T participation Participation in the process . . . . . . 14 Process ........... 16
3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Team Document Review ................................ 17
3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents by participants in the
ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Working Group Document Review ............................ 17
3.3. Poll for working group documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Responding to an IETF Working Group Last Call . . . . . . 15
4. Specific guidelines that apply and Document Approval ............ 18
3.4. Non-Response to work on Liaisons ................................. 19
4. Guidelines For MPLS-TP work in the ITU-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ..................... 20
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Considerations .......................................... 20
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Considerations ...................................... 20
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .............................................. 21
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ................................................... 21
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ..................................... 21
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ................................... 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .............................................. 22

1. Introduction

When

The IETF and ITU-T have entered into the an agreement to develop MPLS-TP, the JWT
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP).
This agreement included is known as the decision Joint Working Team on MPLS-TP (JWT)
Agreement and is documented in [RFC5317]. The agreement states that the
MPLS-TP documents
should will be developed "according to documented in IETF processes". It was also
assumed RFCs, and assumes that there would will
be close cooperation with the ITU-T in reviewing these IETF
documents. The JWT decision is documented in RFC 5317 [RFC5317].

However, RFCs.

This document provides additional detail of the process processes for this close cooperative review was mostly
left to be decided the
development of IETF RFCs on MPLS-TP as follows.

o It Provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process, with
respect to the how the IETF will take input from the ITU-T on
MPLS-TP topics.

o It identifies the expected participation by the ITU-T in the
document development process, noting that the documents evolved. The ITU-T has committed
to responding promptly to IETF working group last calls, this calls in a way
that may require the development of the response ITU-T to develop responses via
correspondence.

Nor is this

o It clarifies the rules regarding MPLS-TP documents.

This document complements the process as documented in the JWT
decision with a few separate elements; it:

o Provides an adaptation of the IETF working group process, with
respect to the role of the teams (MPLS Interoperability Design
Team (MEAD Team), the Joint Working Team (JWT) and the ITU-T
MPLS-TP ad hoc team) that has been set up to facilitate the
development of MPLS-TP; see Section 2.

o Identifies the expected participation by the ITU-T in the document
development process; see Section 3.

o Clarifies decision rules regarding MPLS-TP documents; see
Section 4.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Although this document is not a protocol specification, this language
is used for clarity and decisiveness.

1.1. Terminology

This section includes a number of terms and abbreviations that are
used in this document. The section is split into two subsection; subsection:
IETF terms and ITU-T terms.

1.1.1. IETF terms Terms and abbreviations Abbreviations

o JWT - Joint Working Team, a team with participants with experience
from standards development in the IETF and the ITU-T.

Note: The JWT is not part of either the IETF or ITU-T, but a group
that has been set up to facilitate cooperation on MPLS-TP between
the two organizations.

o JWT documents decision - the A set of documents envisioned recommendations on the procedural approach
to the development of MPLS-TP made by the JWT and documented in
[RFC5317].

o JWT agreement - The agreement between IETF and ITU-T based on the
documentation
JWT decision to jointly develop MPLS-TP according IETF processes.

o JWT documents - The set of documents envisioned in the JWT decision, see RFC 5317
decision [RFC5317].

o MEAD team - MPLS Interoperability Design Team, a temporary team
with participants with experience from standards development for
MPLS and transport networks. The MEAD team is chartered to
coordinate the development of MPLS-TP within the IETF and to
coordinate the on MPLS-TP cooperation with the ITU-T.

o MPLS-TP documents - the The following sets of documents are counted as
MPLS-TP documents:

* Internet Drafts Internet-Drafts that are coordinated by the MEAD team.

* Individual Internet Drafts Internet-Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP problem
space.

* Working group Internet Drafts Internet-Drafts that addresses the MPLS-TP
problem space.

* Internet Drafts Internet-Drafts that are considered for publication as RFCs by
the IESG and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.

* Internet Drafts Internet-Drafts that are approved for publication as RFCs by
the IESG and that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.

* Published RFCs that addresses the MPLS-TP problem space.

* ITU-T Recommendations and draft Recommendations in various
stages of development that addresses address the MPLS-TP problem space.

Documents that originates originate from the IRTF RFC stream is are NOT
considered as MPLS-TP documents.

o MPLS-TP mailing list - An IETF mailing list (mpls-tp@ietf.org)
established specifically for the discussion of MPLS-TP issues
within the IETF. The MPLS-TP list is the mailing list that is used
decide consensus on MPLS-TP issues. This is an open mailing list
with publicly available archives.

o MPLS-TP responsible working group chair - An IETF MPLS working
group chair assigned responsibility for the IETF MPLS-TP effort
by the IETF Routing Area Directors.

o MPLS-TP responsible AD - An IETF Routing Area Director with
management responsibility for the MPLS-TP effort.

o IETF liaison to the ITU-T on MPLS - An individual assigned
responsibility by the IAB for managing the liaison relationship
to the ITU-T in regard of all issues concerning MPLS, including
MPLS-TP.

1.1.2. ITU-T terms Terms and abbreviations Abbreviations

o Ad Hoc Team on MPLS-TP (ahtmplstp) - A team established by SG Study
Group 15 of the ITU-T to coordinate the work on MPLS-TP within the
ITU-T and to act as a focal point for communication with the IETF. IETF
about MPLS-TP.

o Ad Hoc Team on MPLS-TP mailing list - An ITU-T mail exploder
(ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int) established specifically for the
discussion and coordination of the MPLS-TP effort within the
ITU-T.

o Contribution - a A contribution is a document that is submitted to
the ITU-T to advance work on the development of a Recommendation
or to propose the development of a new Recommendation.

o Recommendation - a A Recommendation is the an ITU-T standards document.

2. Adaptation

1.2. Purpose and Intent of the IETF working group process Cooperation on MPLS-TP

The IETF working group processes as defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] are
for the purpose and objectives of the development activity on MPLS-TP updated as follows. is
described in [RFC5317]. The IETF works according to a 'rough consensus' model, where working
group chairs determine JWT decision includes the consensus after discussions on recognition
that the mailing
lists. This design authority for MPLS (including MPLS-TP) is applicable the IETF.
At the same time, the JWT decision recognises the role of the ITU-T
in providing input (especially input to the requirements statements)
to the development process for MPLS-TP. There is also a clear
statement of expectation that the ITU-T's opinions will be heard
within the IETF and must be properly considered during the
development of MPLS-TP documents.

The development of standards for MPLS-TP is, therefore, carried out
within the IETF according to IETF process and with strong input from
the ITU-T. This input takes three forms (see also Section 2.2):

o Active participation.

All interested parties are encouraged to participate in the
development of MPLS-TP standards within the IETF through the
normal IETF process. In short, this involves the generation and
documentation of new ideas as Internet-Drafts, and the discussion
of work in progress through the IETF mailing lists. The IETF is
not a membership organisation, and the mailing lists are open.

o Informal communication.

It is recognised that discussions about MPLS-TP will take place
within the Questions and Study Groups of the ITU-T. In order to
speed up the development process and ensure smooth communications,
the ITU-T is requested to make informal (i.e., email)
communications to the IETF whenever any issues or questions
arise. Informal communication can be sent by any individual or
rapporteur of a Question as an email to the MPLS-TP mailing list.
The chairs of the ahtmplstp may also summarise discussions within
the ITU-T (especially those on the ahtmplstp mailing list) and
communicate them to the IETF via email.

o Formal communication.

The formal liaison process with the IETF is described in [RFC4052]
and [RFC4053]. The process will be used for ensuring that specific
progress steps are check-pointed and recorded, and for making sure
that appropriate responses are generated in a timely manner.

The objective of cooperation between the IETF and ITU-T is to ensure
full participation of interested parties to make sure that all
opinions are heard with the intention of producing sound and stable
MPLS-TP documentation. It is understood that the neither the IETF nor
the ITU-T should be in a position to block the work of the other body
within its areas of authority. In the context of this document, this
means that the ITU-T must not block IETF work on MPLS-TP against the
IETF consensus view.

Part of this process must be the understanding that all IETF
documentation (including RFCs) can be revised or extended according
to normal IETF procedures. Therefore, it is not a requirement that
the first version of any RFC be perfect for all time (we do not need
to "boil the ocean"); the initial aim of the work is to provide
documentation of MPLS-TP as it is initially developed and deployed.

Fundamental to understanding the process described in the rest of
this document and to participating in the MPLS-TP development process
is a working knowledge of the procedures of the IETF. Readers needing
clarification of the IETF procedures are invited to read [RFC2026],
[RFC4677], and [RFC4929]. Further clarification and guidance can be
obtained from the MPLS-TP responsible working group chair, the MPLS-
TP responsible AD, and the IETF liaison to the ITU-T on MPLS.

The ITU-T may also develop Recommendations to document MPLS-TP. The
JWT decision recognises that these Recommendations must not contain
normative definitions of MPLS-TP (these are captured solely in IETF
RFCs). Recommendations on MPLS-TP will be provided for review by the
IETF to ensure conformance with the previous point and to verify that
the material is consistent across MPLS-TP. The process for producing
and reviewing Recommendations is out of scope for this document.

2. Adaptation of the IETF Working Group Process

The IETF working group processes as defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] are
adapted as described in this section solely for the purpose of the
MPLS-TP work. These adaptations do not apply to any other topic or
work also. within the IETF.

2.1. IETF Consensus and Mailing Lists

The
mpls-tp@ietf.org IETF works according to a 'rough consensus' model, where working
group chairs determine the consensus after discussions on the mailing
lists. This is also applicable to the MPLS-TP work. The MPLS-TP
mailing list used exists to find out consensus focus all IETF discussions on MPLS-TP and
consensus is determined by to
avoid congesting other relevant working group mailing lists. All
technical discussion on MPLS-TP SHOULD be directed to the MEAD team chair. After a document has
become MPLS-TP
list, but other working group mailing lists SHOULD be notified when
appropriate so that individuals can participate in the discussions on
the MPLS-TP list.

Consensus activities (such as a working group document last call) MUST be
started on an working group mailing list, but the consensus is decided by MPLS-TP responsible
working group chair MAY direct discussions to the WG
chairs MPLS-TP list and
MAY direct that consensus will be judged on that list.

2.2. Communications with the MEAD team chair jointly. ITU-T

A most important part of this process is the information exchange
between the IETF and ITU-T. This information exchange consists of
two equally important pieces: pieces.

o informal Informal information exchange

this

This is done primarily by E-Mail e-mail to the relevant mailing lists.
Information sent from IETF, IETF areas and working groups, or from to the IETF MEAD team are ITU-T MUST be sent to and areas and the
ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int Ad Hoc MPLS-TP
mailing list. Information sent from ITU-T to the IETF should e MUST be sent to the MEAD team (mead@ietf.org) and/or
the mpls-tp@ietf.org
MPLS-TP mailing list.

o formal Formal information exchange

In addition to E-Mail, the informal information exchange, a formal
information exchange is accomplished by liaison correspondence
between the two organisations. Exchange of liaisons makes it
possible to follow the request/response exchange between the
organisations in more
detail.

2.1. Adaptation detail, and to obtain an official view of the
each organisation's position on any topic.

2.3. Adapted IETF working group process Working Group Process

2.3.1. Flow Chart

The flow chart below describes the adaption of the working group
process. The flow chart and the process as described in Section 2.3.2
are equally normative.

............. .............
: Ind Docs :------+ :--------+ : JWT docs :
............. | .............
| | |
| ind-00 (1) | ind-00 (2) | ind-00 (3)
|(1) |(2) |(3)
| | |
v | v
+-----------+ | +----------------+ (4) +-------+
|
+--->| WG proc | +------->| +----->| MEAD team proc |<----->| |------>| ITU-T |
| | |-------+ +--| | +-------+
| +-----------+ | | +----------------+ (5) |
+->
| ind-00, ind-01, etc | | ^ ind-00, ind-01, etc <-+<-----+ |(5)
| | (6) |(6) +--+---+ (6) | |(6) |
+----------+ |(7) +-------------+ +-------+<-----------------+
review +----+ | review
v
+-----------------+
| poll for wg doc -----------------+ |
+-----------------+
|(8)
| (7a)
v
v
+-------------+ (8) (9) +-------+
+----------> |
+----------->| wg doc |<------------>| |------------->| ITU-T |
| +-------------+ +-------+
| | +-> ^ wg-00, wg-01, etc |
| | | |(11) |(10)
(15)| (12)| +------+<------------------+
| (9) | (10)
| | +----------+<----------------+
| (11) | review
| v
| +-----------------+ (12) +---------+
(14b) | |
+-----| wg last call |<----------->| ITU-T | |
+-----------------+ +---------+
|
| ^ |
|
(13)| |(14a) | (15)
| |(14) |(16)
v | |
|
+---------+ |
+-------|
| ITU-T | |
+---------+ |
|
v
+-----------------+
+---------------+
| req for publ pub |
+-----------------+

2.2.
+---------------+

2.3.2. The IETF MPLS-TP process Process

This section gives guidelines describes the development for how MPLS-TP documents. It sets
out the process that is illustrated by the flow chart above could be
traversed.

2.2.1. Developing a MPLS-TP document in Section
2.3.1. The numbered arrows in the flow chart are described as
numbered steps in the process in the list below.

Individual MPLS-TP documents may can take different paths through the
this process, the numbers in the list below are mapped to the numbers
in the flow chart above. process. Although the different paths through the flow chart are
given as
'options' options, it is always possible for a particular MPLS-TP
Internet-Draft to be adopted as a working group draft. This is done
on the MEAD team guidance of the MPLS-TP responsible working group chair and in
cooperation with the relevant working group chairs and the document
editors/authors.

1. Independent Documents through Working Group Processing

Internet-Drafts MAY be introduced by their authors to describe
any aspect of MPLS-TP. This option (compare with step 2) results
in the document being discussed and take
over reviewed by the shepherding of appropriate
IETF working group as determined by the working group chairs. The
normal IETF process will be applied, and the authors will revise
the document (step 6) until it is adopted as a particular MPLS-TP Internet working group
draft (see step 7).

Any individual or group of individuals can create an Internet-
Draft . This through this step.

2. Independent Documents through MEAD Team Coordination

Internet-Drafts MAY be brought to the MEAD team or initiated by
the MEAD team. The MEAD team is done in cooperation between responsible for discussing,
reviewing, and revising (step 6) the documents as independent
drafts. The MEAD team chair, will solicit input from the relevant
working group chairs ITU-T (step 4)
and will publicise the document editors/authors.

1. They may be intended for and managed by a working group.

This means that documents on the author, or authors, of such a document have
chosen MPLS-TP mailing list to send
encourage input from the IETF community. Normal IETF design team
process will apply until the document to is adopted as a working
group instead draft (see step 7).

Any individual or group of
running individuals can create an Internet-
Draft through this step. However, the MEAD team. Normal IETF process will kick in
in such cases and working group chairs will agree team MAY decide that
it is unwilling to which
working group(s) such a document will be taken.

2. They may be coordinated by support the MEAD team.

This means that document. In this case, the author, or authors, of such a document have
chosen to send
authors MAY bring the document to in following step 1.

3. Joint Working Team Originated Documents

The JWT MAY initiate MPLS-TP documents, or request that the MEAD
team to be coordinated
with the rest create specific documents. The MEAD team MUST process these
as independent submissions as described in step 2.

[RFC5317] includes a list of the MPLS-TP JWT documents that is in the purview of
the MEAD team.

3. They may MUST be originated
considered by the MEAD team based to be processed on this step, but the JWT
decision.

In documentation of the work of the JWT, there is a proposed
document structure. The
MEAD team used MAY vary this structure to decide
on a set of documents that will, when completed, constitute the
MPLS-TP standard. This set of documents may change slightly, if
- e.g. - list if, for example, it becomes more
appropriate to split a single document into two or more, or if
some new aspect of MPLS-TP needs to be specified.

4. Everytime Every time a document is accepted by the MEAD team into the set
of documents coordinated by the MEAD team a liaison is MUST be sent
to the ITU-T with a pointer to that document. At the same time a
note is SHOULD be sent to the Ad Hoc Team on MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list
informing the list that the document has become a MEAD team
document.

Each time a document coordinated by the MEAD team is revised a
note SHOULD be sent to the Ad Hoc Team on MPLS-TP mailing list,
and a liaison MAY be sent to the ITU-T to inform them of the
progress of the document.

The ITU-T may chose to MAY respond to the liaison these liaisons (step 5), but a response
is not required to do so, see (see Section 3 and Section 4. 4).

5. At any time, it is possible for the ITU-T SG and Question participants to send review
comments on MEAD team documents. It
is also possible for any MPLS-TP document. Such comments SHOULD be sent as
comments to the MEAD team MPLS-TP mailing list according to ask normal IETF
process.

Additionally, this step provides for such reviews and
comments.

Any time such input communication from ITU-T
Study Groups or requests are sent between the two
organizations it SHALL Questions. These communications may be accompanied by
unsolicited or in response to a note request from the MPLS-TP
ad hoc team chair(s) IETF (step 4),
and MAY be informal information exchanges or formal information
exchanges (see Section 2.2). Such exchanges (informal or formal)
SHOULD be accompanied by an email to the MEAD team MPLS-TP mailing list, or list
from the ahtmplstp chair.

The MEAD team chair SHOULD give due consideration to the issues raised
in the communications received ITU-T, and SHOULD attempt to make
suitable changes to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list. This document or MUST otherwise
explain why no change is done being made.

Formal information exchanges MUST receive a response if
requested. The IETF liaison to enhance the efficiency of ITU-T on MPLS and the information exchange.

6. A working group or
addressees of the MEAD team may issue requests liaison are responsible for general ensuring that this
step is completed.

6. Authors of independent documents SHOULD solicit comments on the
MPLS-TP documents at mailing list and on any time, if it is deemed appropriate to extend these requests to IETF working group
mailing lists. Comments can also be received from the MPLS-TP ad hoc team
this is done via a note ITU-T as
described for step 5.

The authors SHOULD revise the documents according to entry (5) in this list. comments
received from all sources, or explain why no changes been made.

7. If a an MPLS-TP document seems mature enough to become a working
group document, a poll is done on the mpls-tp MPLS-TP mailing list and
the appropriate working group mailing list (7), this request
will also be sent to determine whether
there is consensus to adopt the ITU-T document as a liaison (7a) and a note will
also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team. working group
document.

Which working group a document goes into is decided jointly
between by
the MEAD team, MPLS-TP responsible working group chair and the chairs of the potential
target working groups and the document editors/authors. group.

8. If the document is accepted as a working group document the
working group takes over the revision control of the document.

The ITU-T is expected to respond to
Normal IETF working group process SHALL apply. All IETF
discussions about the liaison within in document MUST now be held on the
time indicated in MPLS-TP
mailing list with notifications sent to the liaison, see Section 3 and Section 4.

8. Every time relevant IETF working
group mailing list.

9. When a MPLS-TP document is accepted as a working group document by any IETF working group,
informational notification MUST be sent to the ITU-T as a liaison
and as an email to the ahtmplstp mailing list. No response to
this liaison is expected.

Each time an MPLS-TP document under working group control is
revised a note SHOULD be sent to the
ITU-T with Ad Hoc Team on MPLS-TP
mailing list, and a pointer liaison MAY be sent to the ITU-T to inform
them of the progress of the document. At No response to these
liaisons is expected.

The IETF working group MAY solicit input from the same ITU-T at any
time.

10. At any time, it is possible for ITU-T participants to send review
comments on any MPLS-TP document. Such comments SHOULD be sent as
comments to the MPLS-TP mailing list according to normal IETF
process.

Additionally, this step provides for communication from ITU-T
Study Groups or Questions (see Section 3.2). These communications
may be unsolicited or in response to a note request from the IETF
(step 8), and MAY be informal information exchanges or formal
information exchanges (see Section 2.2). Such exchanges (informal
or formal) SHOULD be accompanied by an email to the MPLS-TP
mailing list from the ahtmplstp chairs.

The document editors and the working group SHOULD give due
consideration to the issues raised in the communications from the
ITU-T, and SHOULD attempt to make suitable changes to the MPLS-TP
document or MUST otherwise explain why no change is being made.

Formal information exchanges MUST receive a response if
requested. The IETF liaison to the ITU-T on MPLS is sent to responsible
for ensuring that this step is completed.

11. Editors working group documents SHOULD solicit comments on the
MPLS-TP ad hoc team mailing list informing the
list that the document has become a and on any appropriate IETF working group document.

9. Working group documents may
mailing lists. Comments can also be reviewed in several steps, every
time such a review is initiated received from the MPLS-TP ad hoc team is
notified (10). ITU-T as
described for step 9.

The authors SHOULD revise the documents according to comments
received from all sources.

Note that most comments leading that lead to updates of working group
documents are a result of spontaneous individual reviews and
comments from the individual participants in the MPLS-TP effort.

10. Every time a review is initiated by a working group the
appropriate ITU-T SGs and Questions will be notified by E-Mail
to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team.

Optionally the request for review may be accompanied by a
liaison to formalize the request.

The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is responsible for ensuring that any
e-mail requests are copied/forwarded effort
according to the relevant SGs and
Questions.

11. normal IETF process.

12. When a an MPLS-TP document is deemed mature enough, a working group
last call is initiated. At this time the action describe under item
12 in this list MUST be executed.

12. Procedures to be followed when initiated following normal IETF process.

13. When a working group last call is
initiated. initiated for any MPLS-TP
document the following actions MUST be taken.

* A liaison containing a request for participation in the working
group last call will MUST be sent to the appropriate ITU-T
SGs Study
Groups and Questions.

The ad hoc team on MPLS-TP is expected to verify that all the
Study Groups and Questions within the ITU-T that need to
respond to the working group last call are aware that it has
been issued.

* A notification that the working group last call is taking place will
MUST be provided sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team via E-Mail
sent ahtmplstp mailing list and to the MPLS-TP
mailing list.

14. The ITU-T is REQUIRED to respond to the liaison in step 13 within
the time
indicated. The MPLS-TP ad hoc team is expected to verify
that all indicated in the SGs and Questions within liaison (see Section 3.3). This
deadline will usually be set according to the timeline of the
working group last call.

The ITU-T that need to
respond response MUST either include comments to be taken under
consideration by the working group along with other last call are aware
comments, or provide a statement that it the ITU-T has
been issued.

13. When all last call comments are addressed and/or responded to, no comment.
The latter case SHALL be interpreted as ITU-T approval for the
publication of the document will be sent as an RFC.

The working group and document editors MUST fully address any
comments received from the ITU-T under this step either making
the requested changes, or discussing the changes with the ITU-T
to reach a consensus position on the ITU-T, asking MPLS-TP mailing list.

15. According to normal IETF process, if the last call comments are
substantial the document
is ready to MUST be sent returned to the IESG with a request working group
for publication.
The response sought from ITU-T is either an acknowledgment that revision and discussion. This MAY necessitate further
communication with the document is ready ITU-T (step 9) to publish clarify or a response that there is
further work that needs to be done.

Note: WG resolve
issues raised during ITU-T review.

The working group last call may MAY be re-iterated, repeated multiple times for
revisions of the entire document
or limited to only verify document. As is normal IETF process, the updates made because of an earlier working
group chairs MAY issue subsequent working group last call.

14. The ITU-T has one week to respond (yes calls for
the entire document or no) MAY be limited to only the question
posed in (13).

The answer can be either "yes - go ahead" (14a), updated text in which case
the Working Group will request publication; document. In the latter case, further comments from within
the IETF or ...

... it can from the ITU-T SHOULD be "no - more work is needed" (14b), in which case it
will go back into limited as instructed by the normal
working group process chair.

Note that, according to identify
what is needed.

15. When the ITU-T gives normal IETF process, if the final acknowledgement (14a), a request
for publication will last call
comments are minor, they SHOULD be sent to addressed by the IESG (15).

The document that is sent to the ITU-T
editors in step (13) coordination with the working group chairs and which
generates a positivie response from ITU-T (14a) is sent
unchanged, save for editorial changes, with
notification to the IESG MPLS-TP mailing list.

16. When all last call comments have been addressed or responded to
and all necessary working group last calls have been held, the
working group chairs of the owning working group with a assistance
of the MPLS-TP responsible working group chair will request for
publication (15) of the document as a RFC. an RFC following normal IETF
process.

Once this request for publication is sent, the last point in
this process where it sent there is acceptable to allow no further
scope for the ITU-T to influence in the development of a document is passed. the document.
After this point, the document will be handled as any other IETF document.

2.2.1.1.
document with individual comments made during IETF last call, and
with IESG review following.

Note that if these later stages in the publication process cause
significant changes to the document, it MAY be fully or partially
returned to the working group, in which case some form of WG last
call with ITU-T consultation MUST take place following from step
12 as outlined above.

2.4. Naming conventions Conventions for MPLS-TP Internet Drafts Documents

To make it easier to search in the IETF Internet Draft repositories
the Internet-Draft repositories,
the following guidelines should rules MUST be followed for naming the MPLS-TP
Internet Draft filenames. Internet-
Draft.

o All MPLS-TP Internet Draft should Internet-Draft MUST include the sequence "mpls-tp"
in the filename.

o Individual MPLS-TP Internet Draft should Internet-Draft MUST be named according to
this format:

draft-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt

"name" is the last name of the main editor, or an acronym
indicating the last names of the set of editors.

"topic" indicates the content of the draft, e.g. "oam-framework".

"??" indictes indicates a two digit version number, starting with "00".

o MPLS working group documents should MUST be named according to this
format: as follows:

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt

"topic" indicates the content of the draft, e.g. "oam-framework".

"??" indicates a two digit version number, starting with "00".

o MPLS-TP documents from other working groups shouldbe MUST be named
according to this format:

draft-ietf-wg-name-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt

"wg-name"

draft-ietf-wgname-mpls-tp-topic-??.txt

"wgname" is the acronym for any working group chartered to do
MPLS-TP work, e.g. pwe3 or ccamp.

"topic" indicates the content of the draft, e.g. "oam-framework".

"??" indicates a two digit version number, starting with "00".

3. Expectations on ITU-T participation Participation in the process Process

The IETF and ITU-T processes looks for input from the development of the MPLS-TP
standards interconnect ITU-T at the following point three key points in the flow chart
above: (4), (5), (7a), (8), (10)
process described in Section 2.

o Steps 4 and 5 : Review of MEAD Team Documents
o Steps 9 and 10 : Review of Working Group Documents

o Steps 13 and 14 : Working Group Last Call and (12). Document Approval

This section briefly describes what is expected the IETF expects to happen on the
ITU-T side at the these interaction points.

3.1. Becoming a MEAD team document

(4) is a point at which the MEAD team communicates to the Team Document Review

The ITU-T that
a document is considered may provide input to be accepted for coordination documents that are being developed by
the MEAD team. These documents are individual Internet-Drafts (that
is, they have not been adopted by a working group), but they form
part of the formal IETF MPLS-TP effort and are open for informal and
formal comment by the ITU-T and its participants.

As shown by step 4 in the process described in Section 2, the IETF
will notify the ITU-T of the existence of such documents and will
normally inform the ITU-T of new revisions. The ITU-T is expected not
required to respond to the communication with a simple
ACK these communications.

The IETF may also request review or NAK, however a non-response is counted as an ACK.

An ACK means that ITU-T accepts that the document has become a discussion of MEAD team document, a NAK means that
documents. The ITU-T has issues that needs to be
resolved before the document is allowed required to progress.

3.2. Comments on MEAD team documents respond to this type of
communication if it is a formal liaison (step 5) within the deadline
set by participants in the ITU-T

(5) liaison (see Section 3.4). In this case, it should either
send a liaison response with comments and (10) offer possibilities for ITU-T, questions, or people active in it should
acknowledge the
ITU-T, liaison from the IETF saying that there are no
questions or comments at this time. The latter type of response will
not be taken by the IETF to imply any form of support for the
document unless it is explicitly expressed.

Additionally, the ITU-T may send un-triggered comments unsolicited communications on a MEAD
team document as either informal or working group
documents. Such formal communications (step 5).
Formal communications may request a response from the IETF.

However, ITU-T participants are encouraged to bring their comments shall be sent
and questions to the mpls-tp MPLS-TP mailing list directly, because this will
be more efficient and for
working group documents also conforms to the appropriate working group mailing
list. normal IETF process. Comments
received in this way will be treated in the same way
any as other individual comments received on the IETF documents.

3.3. Poll for working group documents

(7a) is given full consideration by the point at which an IETF working group informs MEAD
team and the ITU-T
that a poll to progress a document authors.

3.2. Working Group Document Review

The ITU-T may provide input to an documents that are being developed by
IETF working group document
has been started.

It is not necessary, or required, groups. They are open for informal and formal comment by
the ITU-T to respond to this
message. If and its participants.

As shown by step 9 in the ITU-T has serious concerns these should be provided
via a liaison statement. If process described in Section 2, the IETF
will notify the ITU-T has no serious concerns it is
allowed and encouraged that individual participants provide comments.
Such responses shall be sent to of the appropriate working group and
mpls-tp mailing lists existence of such documents and represent will
normally inform the view ITU-T of the person sending
the mail.

An Internet Draft new revisions. The ITU-T is ready not
required to become a respond to these communications.

The IETF may also request review or discussion of working group draft
documents. The ITU-T is required to respond to this type of
communication if it
meets at least the three criteria below.

o it is a formal liaison (step 10) within the charter of deadline
set by the working group

o liaison (see Section 3.4). In this case, it addresses should either
send a problem that needs to be solved

o liaison response with comments and questions, or it is a good enough start toward solving should
acknowledge the liaison from the IETF saying that there are no
questions or comments at this problem

Responses time. The latter type of response will
not be taken by the IETF to polls checking if a imply any form of support for the
document unless it is ready to become explicitly expressed.

Additionally, the ITU-T may send unsolicited communications on a
working group document should be limited as either informal or formal communications
(step 5). Formal communications may request a response from the IETF.

However, ITU-T participants are encouraged to bring their comments
and questions to considering if the
document meets those three criteria.

3.4. Responding MPLS-TP mailing list directly, because this will
be more efficient and conforms to an the normal IETF process. Comments
received in this way will be treated in the same way any as other
individual comments received on IETF documents.

3.3. Working Group Last Call

(12) is the point in the process where ITU-T is made aware of that an
IETF working group last call has been started. The and Document Approval

A working group last call is issued when a working group document is getting
close to being ready for publication. publication as an RFC. The intention is to
make sure that there are no important pieces missing and missing, that technical
details are
correct. correct, and that there is consensus within the working
group for moving forward. Consensus for MPLS-TP documents is judged
on the designated mailing list (normally the MPLS-TP mailing list) by
the chairs of the working group that has developed the document in
association with the MPLS-TP responsible working group chair.

During working group last call for all MPLS-TP documents the ITU-T
will always be consulted about the content of the documents. The
purpose of this step (step 13) is to ensure that the documents
address the needs and requirements of the ITU-T participants.

A formal communication will be made to the ITU-T to make it aware
that an IETF working group last call has been started and requesting
review and comment. According to the JWT decision decision, the ITU-T is
required to respond to a liaison about a working group last call
within the time set in announcing the working group last call. ITU-T
participants need to be aware that this step in the process
represents their last chance to influence the document from within
the ITU-T, and the liaison response needs to contain all issues and
comments - there will not be any scope to raise further concerns at a
later date.

The chair of an IETF working group that starts a working group last
call will send a liaison to the ITU-T announcing the working group
last call. A message will also be sent to the MPLS-TP ad hoc team.

The IETF will make a best effort attempt to target the SGs ITU-T Study
Groups and Questions that should be involved in responding to the
working group last call. However, the ITU-T has to must make sure that the
appropriate entities within the ITU-T participate in responding responding to
the working group last call. The ITU-T ad hoc team on MPLS-TP
coordinates the development of the ITU-T response to the working
group last call.

The response to a working group last call should be unambiguous and
as detailed as possible. The liaison response is not intended to
start a conversation for clarification. It is intended to make clear
statements of technical issues to be addressed and to propose
resolutions for those issues. Acceptable responses include:

o No issues found. The ITU-T approves publication of the Internet-
Draft as an RFC in its current form.

o Minor issues found or questions raised. Please consider fixes to
these issues or respond to these questions before publication of
the Internet-Draft as an RFC.

o Major issues found. Please address these issues and allow the
ITU-T to review the resolution (possibly during a further working
group last call) before proceeding to publication of the Internet-
Draft as an RFC.

Note that, as described in Section 1.2, the cooperation process is
designed to ensure constructive consideration and resolution of all
issues raised by the ITU-T without being blocking on the progress of
the IETF's work on MPLS-TP. It is expected that discussion of major
issues raised at this stage of the process will be conducted on the
MPLS-TP mailing list and through appropriate communication with the
ITU-T. It is further expected that such issues will be resolved
through technical evaluation and rough consensus judged as normal for
the IETF process. In the event that agreement between the IETF and
ITU-T cannot be reached on some technical point, the JWT will be
convened to seek a resolution.

3.4. Non-Response to Liaisons

The liaison relationship between the IETF and the ITU-T is founded on
the understanding that each party will respond in a timely and
appropriate manner to the other party's liaisons so long as
reasonable notice is given.

Failure to respond by a deadline properly expressed in a liaison must
not be used to cause deadlock or to block advancement of work. Such
failures shall be assumed to represent accidental errors or
oversights and shall be brought to the working
group last call. The ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team coordinates attention of the
development management of
the ITU-T response body that has failed to respond.

In extreme cases, the working group last call.

4. Specific guidelines that apply JWT is empowered to work on convene to resolve issues
of failed communications.

4. Guidelines For MPLS-TP work in the ITU-T

These guidelines apply to progressing work on MPLS-TP in the ITU-T.

Any member of the ITU-T may send a MPLS-TP contribution to a ITU-T
Study Group or Question.

Before the ITU-T initiates any new work (i.e. items not previously
identified by the JWT) based on such contributions the ITU-T shall
send a liaison to the IETF. The message will go to the MEAD team, IETF
liaison to the ITU-T on MPLS, the MPLS-TP responsible working
group chair and the team is MPLS-TP responsible AD. They are responsible
for creating sending a consolidated IETF response from the IETF, but may
delegate the work of writing the response.

The IETF is expected to must respond to such liaisons according to the information deadline
in the liaison. Acceptable responses include:

o Acknowledgement of receipt and agreement that a new the ITU-T is
clear to proceed with the work described.

o Request that the work described be transferred from the ITU-T to
the IETF in the form of an Internet-Draft to form part of the
MPLS-TP work item has in the IETF.

o Request that the work be put on hold until specific issues have
been proposed with an ACK or NAK.

If resolved. In the event that this response is seen as
blocking of ITU-T work, the JWT may be convened to seek a NAK
resolution.

Note that work item is held until the issues process described in this section is resolved. conformant to the
Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures [RFC4929].

5. IANA considerations Considerations

There are no requests for IANA allocation of code points in this
document.

6. Security considerations Considerations

This document defines a process adaptation for the cooperation
between IETF and ITU-T and thus does not introduce any new security
considerations.

The successful development of MPLS-TP standards that are consistent
across the industry is an essential component to ensuring the
security and stability of MPLS networks.

7. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Eric Gray who helped with grammar and useful comments.
Thanks to Tom Petch who spent time trying to sort out what I wanted
to say the
document said, and has who sent comments that helped clarify the
document.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC4052] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "IAB
Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships",
BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005.

[RFC4053] Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for
Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF", BCP
103, RFC 4053, April 2005.

[RFC4677] Hoffman, P. and Harris, S., "The Tao of IETF: A Novice's
Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force", RFC 4677,
September 2006.

[RFC4929] Andersson, L. and Farrel, A., "Change Process for
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures", BCP 129, RFC4929, June
2007.

[RFC5317] Bryant, S. and L. Andersson, "Joint Working Team (JWT)
Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a
Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009.

Authors' Addresses

Loa Andersson
Ericsson Inc

Email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com

David Ward
Cisco Systems

Email: dward@cisco.com

Malcolm Betts
Huaweil
Huawei

Email: malcolm.betts@huawei.com

Adrian Farrel
Huawei

Email: adrian.farrel@huawei.com

</div>