RFC4053 日本語訳
4053 Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF.S. Trowbridge, S. Bradner, F. Baker. April 2005. (Format: TXT=38816 bytes) (Also BCP0103) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
英語原文
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
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
Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF
Status of This Memo
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.
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 Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
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.
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.
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
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
Table of Contents
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
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
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
1. Introduction
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
2.1. Definitions
For purposes of clarity, we use the following 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.
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
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.
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 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.
Liaison statement: A letter as described in this document, exchanged between organizations.
2.2. Liaison Statements
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.
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
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:
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
2.2.1.1. Envelope Information
The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement.
The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement.
2.2.1.1.1. From:
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".
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:
2.2.1.1.2. To:
The statement will indicate to which body it is. In this document, this body is the "addressee".
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
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
2.2.1.1.3. Title:
2.2.1.1.3. Title:
The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of its context and content.
The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of its context and content.
2.2.1.1.4. Response Contact:
2.2.1.1.4. Response Contact:
The sender will indicate the electronic mail address to which any response should be sent.
The sender will indicate the electronic mail address to which any response should be sent.
2.2.1.1.5. Technical Contact:
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.
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:
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:
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 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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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:
2.2.1.2.1. Body:
As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand.
As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand.
2.2.1.2.2. Attachments:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
3.1.1. Liaison Statement Submission
The IETF Secretariat will provide an electronic method for submission of liaison statements.
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.
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:
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 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 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 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
o an email to the assignee copying
* the liaison statement's technical contacts
* 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 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,
* 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.)
* 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.
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.
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
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.
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
3.1.2. Mechanism for Displaying Liaison Statements
The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement activity. This consists of:
The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement activity. This consists of:
o A submission mechanism,
o A submission mechanism,
o A status/management mechanism for each active or recently closed
liaison statement, and zero or more associated files.
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 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:
The display for liaison statement itself contains:
o the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1),
o the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1),
o direct content (Section 2.2.1),
o direct content (Section 2.2.1),
o URLs for the various associated files
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 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 pointer to the liaison manager and tracking system entry for the liaison statement.
o reply-generation mechanism (see Section 3.2.2.4)
o reply-generation mechanism (see Section 3.2.2.4)
3.2. Communicating IETF Information to Other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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)
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:
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 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 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).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
入って来る連絡声明が別の組織からドキュメントのコメントを要求すると、議論は関係者が彼らのコメントを提供できるメーリングリストに起こるでしょう。
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.
明確なコンセンサスがメーリングリストにされたコメントのパターンから明白であるなら(共同、)、いすは由来している組織への回答連絡声明における結論をまとめることができます。
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.
どんな明確なコンセンサスもメーリングリストのコメントのパターンから明白でないか、または議論がこれ以上なければ、応答はまだ創始者のためです。 メールコメント、または結局のところ興味がある不足の概要は、連絡声明が記述されたIETFグループのコンセンサスよりむしろ創始者に作成されて、送られて、「集まっているコメント」として表されるべきです。 コメントのいくつかが相容れなくても、回答のこの種類を送るのは可能です。
3.2.2.3. Responding to Request for Action
3.2.2.3. 動作を求める要求に応じます。
A request for Action is a fairly serious thing. Examples of the kinds of actions that may be expected are:
Actionを求める要求はかなり重大なものです。 予想されるかもしれない動作の種類に関する例は以下の通りです。
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 別の組織における重なるか関連する仕事の場合では、別の組織は、IETFがもう片方の組織のものに仕事を一直線にするよう要求するかもしれません。
o A request could be made for IETF to undertake a new work item.
o IETFが新しい仕事項目を引き受けるのを要求をすることができました。
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).
o IETFが仕事項目を止めるのを要求をすることができました(おそらく由来している組織における他の仕事と重ね合わせるか、または衝突するので)。
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.
IETFの中の受信グループのコンセンサスが、要求を実現させるのに明確に必要です。 例えば、仕事項目を開始するか、または止めるのが特許変化を必要とするなら、要求を実現させるのは多くの時間と複数のステップを必要とするかもしれません。
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.
もちろん、IETFが要求された動作を実行するという要件が全くありません。 しかし、要求はいつも真剣に受け止められるべきです、そして、応答が必要です。 由来している組織はIETFが何かであるなら要求に対応してすると決めたことにおいていつも知識があるに違いありません。 IETFが、要求を光栄に思わないか、または変更でそれを光栄に思うと決めるなら、応答は理由と適切であり交互の行動を含むべきです。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[12ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
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.
多くの時間を必要とするタスクに、いくつかの連絡声明が仕事の状態と予期された完成時間を報告するために由来している組織に送り返されるのが必要であるかもしれません。 これらの連絡声明の1番目は入って来る連絡声明で簡単に述べられた締め切りで発生しなければなりません。
3.2.2.4. Generating Liaison Statements
3.2.2.4. 連絡声明を作ります。
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.
IETF関係者(通常WGいす(ADs)か他の職員)は、連絡声明を他のSDOsに送ることができる必要があります。 IABと連絡関係を確立した他のSDOsでの適切な接触を記載して、セクション3.1.2で説明されたメカニズムはその能力を提供します。
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<.
便利として、セクション3.1.2で説明された連絡声明ページは、回答を発生させるのに使用されるかもしれません。 人(通常WGいすかAD)が「回答」を選択するなら、新しい連絡声明ページは既存のものから発生します、アドレス指定情報を逆にして。 IETFドキュメントは http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >ファイル<か ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/ >ファイル<などのURLによって参照をつけられるべきです。
The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison statements is a matter of IETF process and is specified in [RFC4052].
連絡声明の送信を発生して、承認する過程は、IETFの過程の問題であり、[RFC4052]で指定されます。
4. Security Considerations
4. セキュリティ問題
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.
この過程を開発することにおける主要な問題の1つはIETFとその過程におけるサービス不能攻撃の可能性です。 歴史的に、IETFはいつも有効に連絡声明を扱っているというわけではありませんでした、それでだめにされるようになる他の組織で働いている人々をもたらして。 また、様々な組織はIETF活動に締め切りを課す関係者一同のためにだめにしている連絡声明の過程を使用しました--して、無視されると感じるので、IETFはそのような締め切り、および他の組織を受け入れません。
For this reason the submission process is automated. While the IETF cannot rate-limit the submitters, it can manage its internal pipelines.
この理由で、服従の過程は自動化されています。 IETFがsubmittersをレートで制限できない間、それは内部のパイプラインに対処できます。
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.
この問題はsubmitter側のどんな認証の不足によっても悪化させられます。 しかしながら、IABは、連絡関係が存在しているのでsubmittersの認証が有効なコントロールでないか否かに関係なく、連絡声明を受け入れることができるのが重要であると考えます。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[13ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
5. Acknowledgements
5. 承認
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.
本稿はIETF、他のSDOs、およびフォーラムの中の多数の個人との議論でうながされました、ゲーリー・フィッシュマンとバートWijnenを含んでいて。 [RFC4052]と提携してそれを開発してあります。]はIAB(レスリーDaigle)のいすの明確な協力で言うことになっています。 また、ITU-T Study Group15とIETF Sub-IP Areaの向こう側に仕事を調整する個人的な経験といくつかの「突きそこなうこと」がこの仕事を動機づけました。 個々の問題(例えば、RFC3427)を記述するいくつかの草稿が、より一般的で、一貫した解決策が外の組織と取り引きするのに必要であると断言します。 これらのテキストからある考えを借りました。
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.
バーバラ・フラー、Sunnyリー、およびマイケル・リーは、原型を開発して、詳細にドキュメントを批評しました。 彼らの入力は直接実現道路地図について説明する付録をもたらしました。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[14ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
Appendix A. Implementation Road Map
付録A.実現道路地図
This section documents the development program as of the time of the writing of this document. It is not normative.
このセクションはこのドキュメントの書くことの時現在、開発計画を記録します。 それは規範的ではありません。
A.1. Phase I: Initial Implementation
A.1。 フェーズI: 初期の実現
A.1.1. Displays
A.1.1。 表示
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).
セクション3.1.1とセクション3.1.2における、必要な表示の記述は2セットの表示を求めます: 公衆(連絡声明を見るための)のためのもの、およびsubmitters(連絡声明を管理するための)のためのもの。
Displays for public view of liaison statements include:
連絡声明の公共の視点のための表示は:
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 すべての送受信の連絡声明(特定の分野TBD)を記載するLiaison Statementsウェブページ。 それぞれの連絡声明のタイトルはその連絡声明のための詳細ページへのリンクです。
o A detail page for each liaison statement that contains:
o それが含むそれぞれの連絡声明のための詳細ページ:
* All of the information specified in the subsections of
Section 2.2.1.
* 情報のすべてがセクション2.2.1の小区分で指定しました。
* 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.
* 連絡声明に伴ったすべての付属、または、声明で言及されましたが、服従の一部として提供されなかったドキュメントへのリンク。
* Links to all related liaison statements (e.g., replies).
* すべてへのリンクは連絡声明(例えば、回答)を関係づけました。
Displays for submitting and managing liaison statements include:
連絡声明を提出して、管理するための表示は:
o A summary page that offers mechanisms for:
o 以下のためにメカニズムを提供する概要ページ
* Creating and submitting a new liaison statement.
* 新しい連絡声明を作成して、提出します。
* Editing a liaison statement that the user has previously
created and submitted.
* ユーザが以前に、作成して、提出するのをさせる連絡声明を編集します。
* Acting on a liaison statement that has been assigned to the
user.
* ユーザに割り当てられた連絡声明に影響します。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[15ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
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 連絡声明を作成して、提出するためのテンプレート。 このテンプレートで、ユーザはセクション2.2.1で指定された情報を入力できます。 ユーザは、情報にいつでも(ユーザが以前に作成して、提出した連絡声明のリストから)テンプレートにアクセスして、アップデートして、再提出できます。
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:
o ユーザに割り当てられた連絡声明を管理するための詳細ページ。 このページは公衆にとって、利用可能な詳細ページと同様です。 しかしながら、それは:も
* A mechanism for replying to the liaison statement (initial
implementation)
* 連絡声明に答えるためのメカニズム(初期の実現)
* A link to a liaison statement tracking mechanism (future
implementation)
* 連絡声明追跡メカニズムへのリンク(今後の実現)
A.1.2. Actions on Submission
A.1.2。 服従への動作
Submission of a liaison statement results in the following actions:
連絡声明の提出は以下の動作をもたらします:
o The information is uploaded to the database.
o 情報はデータベースにアップロードされます。
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 セクション4.1で指定されたアドレスと、そして、事務局へのコピーをもっている受け取り人に内容がセクション3.1.1で指定されているメールメッセージを送ります([RFC4052]で指定されるように)。
o The liaison statement is added to the list on the Liaison
Statements Web page.
o 連絡声明はLiaison Statementsウェブページのリストに追加されます。
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).
o 2詳細ページは連絡声明のために作成されます: 公衆のためのもの(連絡声明を見る)、および送付者と指定代理人のためのもの(連絡声明を管理する)。
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).
ユーザが連絡声明の詳細ページにおける回答を選択するとき、新しい連絡声明を作成して、提出するのが“From"をコピーする既存のものから“To"まで発生して、個人としての応答者のために応答を指定するので、セクション3.2.2で.4を指定して、テンプレートは次の“From"です。 この回答連絡声明の提出はどんな新しい連絡声明の提出への同じセットの動作ももたらします。 さらに、この連絡声明の詳細ページへのリンクはオリジナルの連絡声明(すなわち、ユーザが返答したもの)の詳細ページ(公衆と管理の両方)での関連する連絡声明のリストに追加されます。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[16ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
Appendix B. Phase II: Additional Instrumentation and Responses to Usage
Experience
付録B.フェーズII: 追加計装と用法経験への応答
This section is for information, and is not normative.
このセクションは、情報のためにあって、規範的ではありません。
The intended features of the future liaison statement tracking system are discussed in Section 3.1. They include mechanisms for:
セクション3.1で将来の連絡声明トラッキング・システムの意図している特徴について議論します。 彼らは以下のためにメカニズムを含んでいます。
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 指定代理人を任命します。 初めは人が連絡声明が記述されるボディー(IAB、IESG、Area、WGなど)と交際したということですが、指定代理人は、次に、IETF関係者によって変えられるかもしれません。
o Indicating the status of the liaison statement (e.g., actions
required, actions taken, etc. Specific options TBD).
o 連絡声明の状態を示します。(必要である動作、例えば取られた行動など 特定のオプションTBD).
o Sending ticklers to the assignee when action is required (with
copies to whomever is appropriate).
o 動作が必要であるときにくすぐる人を指定代理人に送る、(誰でもへのコピーが適切である、)
o Changing the status of the liaison statement, the deadline, or
other attributes.
o 連絡声明の状態、締め切り、または他の属性を変えます。
o Reassigning responsibility.
o 責任を再選任します。
o Closing the liaison statement.
o 連絡声明を閉じます。
Normative References
引用規格
[RFC4052] Daigle, L., "IAB Processes for Management of Liaison
Relationships", RFC 4052, April 2005.
[RFC4052] Daigle、L.、「連絡関係の管理のためのIABの過程」、RFC4052、2005年4月。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 17] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[17ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
Authors' Addresses
作者のアドレス
Stephen J. Trowbridge Lucent Technologies 1200 West 120th Avenue, Suite 232, Room 34Z07 Westminster, Colorado 80234-2795 USA
第120Westアベニュー、スイート232、余地の34Z07ウェストミンスター、スティーブンJ.トローブリッジルーセントテクノロジーズ1200コロラド80234-2795米国
Phone: +1 303 920 6545 Fax: +1 303 920 6553 EMail: sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
以下に電話をしてください。 +1 303 920、6545Fax: +1 6553年の303 920メール: sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
Scott Bradner Harvard University 29 Oxford St. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA
スコットブラドナーハーバード大学29オックスフォード聖マサチューセッツ02138ケンブリッジ(米国)
Phone: +1 617 495 3864 Fax: +1 617 492 8835 EMail: sob@harvard.edu
以下に電話をしてください。 +1 617 495、3864Fax: +1 8835年の617 492メール: sob@harvard.edu
Fred Baker Cisco Systems 1121 Via Del Rey Santa Barbara, California 93117 USA
デル・レイカリフォルニア93117サンタバーバラ(米国)経由でフレッドベイカーシスコシステムズ1121
Phone: +1-408-526-4257 Fax: +1-413-473-2403 EMail: fred@cisco.com
以下に電話をしてください。 +1-408-526-4257 Fax: +1-413-473-2403 メールしてください: fred@cisco.com
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 18] RFC 4053 Handling of Liaison Statements April 2005
トローブリッジ、他 連絡声明2005年4月の最も良い現在の習慣[18ページ]RFC4053取り扱い
Full Copyright Statement
完全な著作権宣言文
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Copyright(C)インターネット協会(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.
このドキュメントはBCP78に含まれた権利、ライセンス、および制限を受けることがあります、そして、そこに詳しく説明されるのを除いて、作者は彼らのすべての権利を保有します。
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.
このドキュメントと「そのままで」という基礎と貢献者、その人が代表する組織で提供するか、または後援されて、インターネット協会とインターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースはすべての保証を放棄します、と急行ORが含意したということであり、他を含んでいて、ここに含まれて、情報の使用がここに侵害しないどんな保証も少しもまっすぐになるという情報か市場性か特定目的への適合性のどんな黙示的な保証。
Intellectual Property
知的所有権
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.
IETFはどんなIntellectual Property Rightsの正当性か範囲、実現に関係すると主張されるかもしれない他の権利、本書では説明された技術の使用またはそのような権利の下におけるどんなライセンスも利用可能であるかもしれない、または利用可能でないかもしれない範囲に関しても立場を全く取りません。 または、それはそれを表しません。どんなそのような権利も特定するためのどんな独立している努力もしました。 BCP78とBCP79でRFCドキュメントの権利に関する手順に関する情報を見つけることができます。
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.
IPR公開のコピーが利用可能に作られるべきライセンスの保証、または一般的な免許を取得するのが作られた試みの結果をIETF事務局といずれにもしたか、または http://www.ietf.org/ipr のIETFのオンラインIPR倉庫からこの仕様のimplementersかユーザによるそのような所有権の使用のために許可を得ることができます。
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.
IETFはこの規格を実行するのに必要であるかもしれない技術をカバーするかもしれないどんな著作権もその注目していただくどんな利害関係者、特許、特許出願、または他の所有権も招待します。 ietf ipr@ietf.org のIETFに情報を記述してください。
Acknowledgement
承認
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC Editor機能のための基金は現在、インターネット協会によって提供されます。
Trowbridge, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 19]
トローブリッジ、他 最も良い現在の習慣[19ページ]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
