Liaison response on Y.flowreq
|From Contact||Lars Eggert|
|To Groups||ITU-T-SG-12, ITU-T-SG-13|
The IESG and the IETF Transport and Internet Areas would like to thank ITU-T SG 13 Question 4 for the notification of consent on the "Requirements for the Support of Flow State Aware Transport Technology in an NGN (Y.2121)". We appreciate that the ITU-T is cooperating with the IETF when their Recommendations on Next Generation Networks involve IETF standards. As explained in our previous liaison response to ITU-T SG 13 dated October 13, 2006, the requirements in Y.2121 (then Y.flowreq) propose significant and fundamental changes to the Internet architecture and several of its core protocols and mechanisms. These include new congestion control methods, new authentication and authorization procedures, new signaling schemes and new methods for routing and traffic security. The recently-published RFC 4775  on "Procedures for Protocol Extensions and Variations", which was created with considerable help from ITU-T representatives, defines guideline procedures for cooperation between the IETF and outside entities on the extension of IETF protocols. It attempts to ensure that extensions will conform to the applicable architectural principles and technical criteria. Any development of protocol extensions and mechanisms to fullfil the requirements in Y.2121 would clearly need to occur under the guidelines of RFC 4775. Following this liaison response to ITU-T SG 13, we had a very constructive discussion with the proponents of flow-state aware forwarding during the 67th IETF meeting in San Diego, CA, USA in November 2006. During the meeting, we quickly reached a common agreement that development of protocol extensions to support Y.2121 will follow the guidelines in RFC 4775. The proponents of flow-state-aware forwarding agreed to bring their ideas to the IETF in the form of Internet Drafts and perhaps presentations, so that they can be discussed by the full body of experts in the areas it covers. We are pleased to note that following the face-to-face meeting at IETF-67, a common mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) was created, and the proponents of flow-state aware forwarding discussed documenting their ideas in an Internet Draft, with the eventual goal of requesting a "Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF)" session at an upcoming IETF, to present their proposals to the wider IETF community. We continue to encourage this effort by the proponents of flow-state aware forwarding and look forward to their Internet Drafts and eventual BOF request.  S. Bradner, B. Carpenter and T. Narten. Procedures for Protocol Extensions and Variations. Best Current Practice (BCP) 125, RFC 4775, December 2006.