Subject: [Tsvwg] Proposed Liaison Statement to ITU-T SG 11 on Flow State Aware signalling

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:06:42 +0200

Please provide any comments on this draft LS before the 5th of May. The 
ADs will judge if there is consensus on this statement before sending it.

From: IETF TSV AREA
To:   ITU-T SG 11 ([email-masked]),
       ITU-T Q.5/11 ([email-masked]),
       ITU-T WP 2/11 Session, bearer and resource control
             ([email-masked])
Cc:   IETF Liaison to ITU-T on NGN Monique Morrow ([email-masked]),
       IETF Liaison to ITU-T Scott Bradner ([email-masked]),
       IETF Chair Russ Housley ([email-masked]),
       ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group
             ([email-masked])
Response Contact: Transport Area Directors:
    Magnus Westerlund ([email-masked])
    Lars Eggert ([email-masked])
Technical Contact: 	
    Magnus Westerlund ([email-masked]),
    Lars Eggert ([email-masked])
Purpose: For action
Deadline: 2008-07-27

Subject: Regarding any IETF work required for new ITU-T Recommendation
                Q.Flowstatesig

Body:

The IETF Transport Area would like to thank ITU-T SG 11 for the liaison 
statement titled “Comments on the IETF Liaison response on Y.2121 and 
the development of new Recommendation Q.Flowstatesig” (COM 11 - LS 66 
–E). We appreciate SG11’s willingness to have a good cooperation and 
work within the agreements between our two organizations.

We note your clarification on the intended deployment environment of 
Flow State Aware (FSA) signaling. We like to remark that although 
intended deployment may be limited, the associated signaling and data 
traffic from a FSA enabled end-system, appears to have a very high 
probability to be sent over the general Internet. Thus the development 
of a solution for such functions really should take utmost care to not 
have negative impact on existing end-hosts and network infrastructure. 
This is a major reason why any such extension proposals that affect IETF 
protocols will need extensive and wide review within the IETF community. 
Certain types of extension proposals will be required to be developed 
within IETF itself.

We are looking forward to a liaison statement where you provide out-line 
of your proposed solution for our understanding and you listing where 
you foresee it impacting protocols and specifications that are under 
IETF change control. We also strongly encourage more informal contacts 
with IETF area directors, liaison persons, or WG chairs of relevant WGs 
to enable an as early as possible communication to discuss required 
steps to accomplish any such changes or extensions. This as each 
individual item may require a different process with highly varying time 
required to complete them. There appears to be a potential in the 
planned SG11 work on FSA signaling for extensions that will be required 
to be developed within IETF based on SG11 requirements.

As Y.2121 hints at the potential usage of IP options for carrying the 
FSA information we would like to use this as an example for the required 
process within IETF for specifying such an option. Both IPv4 and IPv6 
Hop-by-hop options are under the registration policy “IESG Approval, 
IETF Consensus or Standards Action processes” as defined by RFC 2434. 
Considering the potential impact on other systems from IP options the 
IESG are likely to require (IETF) standards action for any extension. 
However, the exact judgment on this will of course depend on the actual 
proposal. Why it is important that we as early as possible determine 
what extensions or changes that will be required. And in case standards 
actions are required, a work item needs to be chartered either in a 
suitable existing WG or to create a new WG. Therefore we do extend our 
earlier offer to run a Bird of a Feather (BOF) session on this topic at 
a future IETF meeting. Note that this requires preparations and the 
proponents for this work should contact the transport area directors.

The IETF Transport Area kindly requests the following actions from SG 11:

- That SG 11 as early as possible provide the IETF transport area with a
   general overview of the solution for FSA signaling and inform us on
   the foreseen impact on IETF protocols and any needed extensions or
   changes to protocols under IETF change control.

- That SG11 provides a timeplan for when the above action can be
   completed and any other key points in the timeplan for completion of
   the new Recommendation with the work name Q. Flowstatesig.

- That SG11 provides clarification on what is actually meant with the
   FSA transport technology being overlaid on the NGN.

This Liaison message represents the views of the Transport Area 
directors and has been reviewed and has the consensus of the Transport 
Area.

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------