Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      S. TrowbridgeRequest for Comments: 4053                           Lucent TechnologiesBCP: 103                                                      S. BradnerCategory: Best Current Practice                       Harvard University                                                                F. Baker                                                           Cisco Systems                                                              April 2005Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETFStatus of This Memo   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).Abstract   This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming   liaison statements from other standards development organizations   (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison   statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and   industry fora.  This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate   with other organizations in the international standards community.   The IETF expects that liaison statements might come from a variety of   organizations, and it may choose to respond to many of those.  The   IETF is only obligated to respond if there is an agreed liaison   relationship, however.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................32. Liaison Statements and Their Handling ...........................32.1. Definitions ................................................32.2. Liaison Statements .........................................42.2.1. Contents of a Liaison Statement .....................42.2.1.1. Envelope Information .......................42.2.1.2. Liaison Content ............................52.3. Addressee Responsibilities .................................62.4. Lifetime of a Liaison Statement ............................73. Tools for Handling Liaison Statements ...........................7      3.1. Liaison Statements from Other SDOs, Consortia, and           Fora to IETF ...............................................73.1.1. Liaison Statement Submission ........................83.1.2. 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 .......................103.2.1.2. Requests for Information ..................103.2.1.3. Requesting Comments on Work in Progress ...11                  3.2.1.4. Requests for Other Actions                           (Besides Comments on IETF Drafts) .........113.2.2. Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements ..........113.2.2.1. Responding to Requests for Information ....113.2.2.2. Responding to Requests for Comments .......123.2.2.3. Responding to Request for Action ..........123.2.2.4. Generating Liaison Statements .............134. Security Considerations ........................................135. Acknowledgements ...............................................14A. Implementation Road map ........................................15A.1. Phase I: Initial Implementation ...........................15A.1.1.   Displays .........................................15A.1.2.   Actions on Submission ............................16   B. Phase II: Additional Instrumentation and Responses to      Usage Experience ...............................................17   Normative References ..............................................17Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 20051.  Introduction   This document describes the procedure for generating and handling   liaison statements between the IETF and other SDOs, so that IETF can   effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international   standards community.  These liaison statements are primarily   exchanged between IETF and organizations with whom the IAB has   created a liaison relationship (see [RFC4052]), although other   organizations are not precluded.  The procedures described in this   document encompass all liaisons statements received from SDOs,   whether or not a formal liaison arrangement is in place between the   SDO and the IETF.  The IETF is not obligated to respond to the   liaison statement where there is no formal liaison arrangement.   The implementation of the procedure and supporting tools is occurring   in a minimum of three phases.  The initial phase has been the   development of a prototype (in the best tradition of "rough consensus   and running code"), by Sunny Lee of Foretec, in parallel with the   development of this specification.  The second phase is the   conversion of that prototype to an operational tool.  This   operational tool lacks an automated tracking tool; rather, the   liaison manager implements it in his or her own way.  The third phase   will include that tracking tool.   The specific supporting tools and their functionality described in   this document are one possible way of providing automated support for   the processes described in this document.  Because specific tools and   their functionality will change over time, the descriptions in this   document are to be considered examples only and are not a normative   part of this specification.2.  Liaison Statements and Their Handling   Let us first define what a liaison statement is (and is not), and set   reasonable expectations.  The expectations in this section are   normative for a liaison statement sent by any SDO to the IETF.2.1.  Definitions   For purposes of clarity, we use the following definitions:   Addressee: The Working Group(s) (WG) or other party(s) in the IETF to      whom a liaison statement is addressed.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   Assignee: The person responsible to act on a liaison statement,      initially either the person to whom it was addressed or the chair      of the group to which it was addressed.  The task may be      reassigned to another person in the same or a different group as      appropriate.   Liaison manager: A person designated to act as a manager of the      relationship between the IETF and a peer organization to ensure      that communication is maintained, is productive, and is timely, as      defined by sections2.2 and3 in [RFC4052].   Liaison statement: A letter as described in this document, exchanged      between organizations.2.2.  Liaison Statements   A Liaison Statement is a business letter sent by one standards   organization to another.  These organizations may be at any level   (WG, Area, etc.)   Generally, the sender and receiver are peer   organizations.  A liaison statement may have any purpose, but   generally the purpose is to solicit information, make a comment or   request an action.2.2.1.  Contents of a Liaison Statement   Liaison statements may be very formal or informal, depending on the   rules of the body generating them.  Any liaison statement, however,   will always contain certain information, much as an business letter   does.  This information will include the following:2.2.1.1.  Envelope Information   The following fields detail properties of the liaison statement.2.2.1.1.1.  From:   The statement will indicate from what body it originates; for   example, it may be from, an IETF WG or Area, an ITU-T Study Group,   Working Party, or Question, etc.  In this document, this body is the   "sender".2.2.1.1.2.  To:   The statement will indicate to which body it is.  In this document,   this body is the "addressee".Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 20052.2.1.1.3.  Title:   The statement will contain a short (usually single line) statement of   its context and content.2.2.1.1.4.  Response Contact:   The sender will indicate the electronic mail address to which any   response should be sent.2.2.1.1.5.  Technical Contact:   The sender will indicate one or more electronic mail addresses   (persons or lists) that may be contacted for clarification of the   liaison statement.2.2.1.1.6.  Purpose:   A liaison statement generally has one of three purposes and will   clearly state its purpose using one of the following labels:   For Information: The liaison statement is to inform the addressee of      something, and expects no response.   For Comment: The liaison statement requests commentary from the      addressee, usually within a stated time frame.   For Action: The liaison statement requests that the addressee do      something on the sender's behalf, usually within a stated time      frame.   In Response: The liaison statement includes a response to a liaison      statement from the peer organization on one or more of its      documents and expects no further response.2.2.1.1.7.  Deadline:   Liaison statements that request comment or action will indicate when   the comment or action is required.  If the addressee cannot   accomplish the request within the stated period, courtesy calls for a   response offering a more doable deadline or an alternative course of   action.2.2.1.2.  Liaison Content   The following fields are the substance of the liaison statement.   IETF participants use a wide variety of systems, thus document   formats that are not universally readable are problematic.  As aTrowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   result, documents enclosed with the body or attachments should be in   PDF, W3C HTML (without proprietary extensions), or ASCII text format.   If they were originally in a proprietary format such as Microsoft   Word, the file may be sent, but should be accompanied by a generally   readable file.2.2.1.2.1.  Body:   As with any business letter, the liaison statement contains   appropriate content explaining the issues or questions at hand.2.2.1.2.2.  Attachments:   Attachments, if enclosed, may be in the form of documents sent with   the liaison statement or may be URLs to similar documents including   Internet Drafts.2.3.  Addressee Responsibilities   The responsibilities of the addressee of a liaison statement are the   same as the responsibilities of any business letter.  A liaison   statement calls for appropriate consideration of its contents, and if   a reply is requested and an appropriate relationship exists, a   courteous authoritative reply within the expected time frame.  The   reply may be that the information was useful or not useful, that the   requested action has been accomplished, it will be accomplished by a   specified date, it will not be done for a specific reason, an answer   to a question posed, or any other appropriate reply.   A liaison statement, like any other temporary document, must be   considered for its relevance, importance, and urgency.   One hopes that a liaison statement will be sent to the right   organization, but this cannot be assured.  An SDO might send a   liaison statement to a specific IETF Area whose Area Director (AD)   deems it better handled by one of the WGs, or it might be sent to one   WG when it should have gone to another.  If a liaison statement   arrives that appears misdirected, the assignee should promptly ask   the liaison manager to redirect it appropriately.  In some cases, a   liaison statement may require consideration by multiple groups within   the IETF; in such cases, one assignee takes the lead and   responsibility for developing a response.   Liaison Statements are always important to the body that sent them.   Having arrived at the appropriate body, the liaison statement may be   more or less important to the addressee depending on its contents and   the expertise of the sender.  If the liaison statement seeks to   influence the direction of a WG's development, it should receive theTrowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   same consideration that any temporary document receives.  The WG   chair may request the sender's contacts to make their case to the   IETF WG in the same manner that an author of an internet draft makes   his or her case.   The urgency of a liaison statement is usually reflected in its   deadline.  A liaison statement for informational purposes may have no   deadline; in such a case, a courteous "thank you" liaison statement   is necessary to inform the sender that the liaison statement was   received.  The WG may then inform itself of the contents and close   the document.  A liaison statement specifying a deadline, however,   gives the addressee a finite opportunity to influence the activity of   another body; if it fails to react in a timely fashion, it may miss   the opportunity.2.4.  Lifetime of a Liaison Statement   A liaison statement is a temporary document, much like an internet   draft.  If it affects IETF output, the normal expectation is that the   resulting RFC will contain relevant information that remains   pertinent.  Retaining liaison statements that have been completely   dealt with mostly serves to hide new ones and create the appearance   of not dealing with them.   However, unlike an internet draft, liaison statements are often the   only record the IETF has of the communication with the peer SDO.  As   such, some liaison statements are referred to for relatively long   periods of time.   As a result, the IETF will archive liaison statements that have been   fully dealt with, along with any attachments that may have been   relevant, but do so in a manner obviously distinct from current   liaison statements.3.  Tools for Handling Liaison Statements   Some tools have been developed for the IETF.  Development is expected   to continue.  This section describes the basic tool and its intended   use.3.1.  Liaison Statements from Other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora to IETF   The process of handling a liaison statement is more weighty than   handling a business letter because it is important to a relationship   with another SDO established by the IAB.  To manage liaison   statements, the IETF will offer three electronically accessible   facilities: a form for submission of liaison statements, a mechanism   organizing their contents and making them accessible, and a trackingTrowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   system.  Initially, the tracking system will be a manual procedure   used by the liaison manager; in the future, this should be automated.3.1.1.  Liaison Statement Submission   The IETF Secretariat will provide an electronic method for submission   of liaison statements.   The liaison statement submission mechanism is a form that requests   the information listed inSection 2.2.1 from the user.   Submission of that information results in the following actions:   o  creation of a display mechanism containing the envelope data inSection 2.2.1.1 and URLs pointing to the items fromSection 2.2.1.2, an indication whether the liaison statement has      been replied to, and if so, on what date,   o  the addition of a URL to the "outstanding liaison statements"      summary mechanism,   o  when an automated tracking system has been implemented, a tickler/      status entry in the tracking system, assigned to the relevant      chair or AD,   o  an email to the assignee copying      *  the liaison statement's technical contacts      *  The supervisor of the assignee (if it is to a WG, the relevant         ADs; if to an AD, the IETF Chair),      *  The liaison manager for the sending SDO,      *  an alias associated with the assignee (WG/BOF or other open         mailing list, Area Directorate, IESG, IAB, etc.)      This email should contain the URL to the liaison statement      mechanism, text indicating that the liaison statement has arrived,      requests appropriate consideration, and if a deadline is      specified, a reply by the deadline.   The assignee has the capability of interacting with the liaison   manager and the tracking system (once implemented), including   replying, changing dates, reassignment, closing the liaison statement   process, etc.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   The liaison manager or tracking system's "tickle" function   periodically reminds the assignee by email that the liaison statement   has not yet been closed.  This tickle email copies all of the above   except the associated mailing alias.3.1.2.  Mechanism for Displaying Liaison Statements   The IETF site contains a section for current liaison statement   activity.  This consists of:   o  A submission mechanism,   o  A status/management mechanism for each active or recently closed      liaison statement, and zero or more associated files.   The status/management mechanism contains a simple frame, showing the   title of the liaison statement, the URL for its mechanism, and the   organizations it is from and to.   The display for liaison statement itself contains:   o  the liaison statement envelope information (Section 2.2.1),   o  direct content (Section 2.2.1),   o  URLs for the various associated files   o  current status of the liaison statement: to whom it is assigned,      its due date, and its status,   o  pointer to the liaison manager and tracking system entry for the      liaison statement.   o  reply-generation mechanism (seeSection 3.2.2.4)3.2.  Communicating IETF Information to Other SDOs, Consortia, and Fora   This includes liaison statements sent in reply to liaison statements   sent by other bodies, and liaison statements being originated by the   IETF.3.2.1.  Spontaneously Generating Liaison Statements to Other        Organizations   Liaison Statements can be generated at a WG, Area, or IETF level to   another organization.  The respective (co)chair(s) are responsible   for judging the degree of consensus for sending the particularTrowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   liaison statement and deciding the content.  The amount of consensus   required to send a liaison statement varies greatly depending on its   content.  This section gives some rough guidance about how much   consensus should be sought before sending a liaison statement to   another organization.3.2.1.1.  Transmitting IETF Documents to Other Organizations   The simplest case of approving sending of a liaison statement from   IETF is when the information being transmitted consists of an IETF   document that has some level of agreement within the IETF.  The   process that the document has already gone through to achieve its   current status assures the necessary level of consensus.  Any   Standards Track RFC (Draft Standard, Proposed Standard, Internet   Standard, BCP), and any WG document expected to be placed on the   standards track, may be transmitted without concern.   Informational documents may also be exchanged readily when they   represent a WG position or consensus, such as a requirements or   architecture document.   In all cases, the document status must be appropriately noted.  In   the case of a WG Internet Draft, it must be clear that the existence   of the draft only indicates that the WG has accepted the work item   and, as the standard disclaimer says, the actual content can be   treated as nothing more than Work in Progress.   Individually submitted Internet Drafts, Experimental or Historical   RFCs, and non-WG informational documents should not be transmitted   without developing further consensus within the relevant group, as   these documents cannot be truthfully represented as any kind of IETF   position.3.2.1.2.  Requests for Information   Another type of liaison statement that can be generated without the   need for extensive consensus building on the email list is a request   for information.  The (co)chairs(s) can generate such a liaison   statement when they recognize, from the activities of the group, that   some additional information is helpful, for example, to resolve an   impasse (i.e., don't waste time arguing over what the real meaning or   intent of another SDOs document is, just ask the other SDO and base   further work on the "official" answer).   Other requests for information may request access to certain   documents of other organizations that are not publicly available.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 20053.2.1.3.  Requesting Comments on Work in Progress   There may be cases when one feels that a document under development   in the IETF may benefit from the input of experts in another relevant   SDO, consortium, or forum.  Generally, this is done before the text   is "fully cooked" so that input from experts in another organization   can be included in the final result.  Comments would generally be   solicited for a standards track WG Internet Draft and some level of   consensus should be reached on the WG or other open mailing list that   it is appropriate to ask another organization for comments on an IETF   draft.3.2.1.4.  Requests for Other Actions (Besides Comments on IETF Drafts)   There are many other kinds of actions that might reasonably be   requested of another organization:   o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another      organization, a request could be made that the other organization      change something to align with the IETF work.   o  A request could be made for another organization to start a new      work item (on behalf of IETF).   o  A request could be made for another organization to stop a work      item (presumably because it overlaps or conflicts with other work      in the IETF).   These kinds of requests are quite serious.  They can certainly be   made when appropriate, but should only be made when there is the   clearest possible consensus within the particular WG, Area, or within   the IETF at large.3.2.2.  Responding to Incoming Liaison Statements   Any incoming liaison statement that indicates that it is for   "Comment" or for "Action" requires a response by the deadline; other   liaison statements may also be replied to, although a reply is   generally optional.  It is the responsibility of the (co)chair(s) of   the addressed organization to ensure that a response is generated by   the deadline.3.2.2.1.  Responding to Requests for Information   If another organization requests information that can be found in an   IETF document of the types indicated inSection 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 20053.2.2.2.  Responding to Requests for Comments   If an incoming liaison statement requests comments on a document from   another organization, a discussion will occur on the mailing list   where participants can provide their comments.   If a clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments made to   the mailing list, the (co)chair(s) can summarize the conclusions in a   reply liaison statement back to the originating organization.   If no clear consensus is evident from the pattern of comments on the   mailing list, or if there is no further discussion, a response is   still due to the originator.  A summary of the email comments, or   lack of interest in the issue, should be created and sent to the   originator, and represented as "collected comments" rather than a   consensus of the IETF group to which the liaison statement was   addressed.  It is possible to send this kind of a reply even if some   of the comments are contradictory.3.2.2.3.  Responding to Request for Action   A request for Action is a fairly serious thing.  Examples of the   kinds of actions that may be expected are:   o  In the case of overlapping or related work in another      organization, another organization may request that the IETF align      its work with that of the other organization.   o  A request could be made for IETF to undertake a new work item.   o  A request could be made for IETF to stop a work item (presumably      because it overlaps or conflicts with other work in the      originating organization).   Consensus of the receiving group within IETF is clearly necessary to   fulfill the request.  Fulfilling the request may require a great deal   of time and multiple steps, for example, if initiating or stopping a   work item requires a charter change.   There is, of course, no requirement that IETF perform the action that   was requested.  But the request should always be taken seriously, and   a response is required.  The originating organization must always be   informed of what, if anything, the IETF has decided to do in response   to the request.  If the IETF decides not to honor the request, or to   honor it with modifications, the response should include the reasons   and, if applicable, the alternate course of action.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   For tasks that require a great deal of time, it may be necessary that   several liaison statements be sent back to the originating   organization to report the status of the work and the anticipated   completion time.  The first of these liaison statements must be   generated by the deadline indicated in the incoming liaison   statement.3.2.2.4.  Generating Liaison Statements   IETF participants, usually WG chairs, ADs, or other officials, need   to be able to send liaison statements to other SDOs.  The mechanism   described inSection 3.1.2, listing appropriate contacts in other   SDOs with which the IAB has established liaison relationships,   provides that capability.   As a convenience, the liaison statement page described inSection 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 ashttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>file< orftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>file<.   The process of generating and approving transmission of liaison   statements is a matter of IETF process and is specified in [RFC4052].4.  Security Considerations   One of the key considerations in developing this process has been the   possibility of a denial of service attack on the IETF and its   processes.  Historically, the IETF has not always handled liaison   statements effectively, resulting in people working in other   organizations becoming frustrated with it.  Various organizations   have also used the liaison statement process to impose deadlines on   IETF activities, which has been frustrating for all concerned - the   IETF because it does not accept such deadlines, and other   organizations because they feel ignored.   For this reason the submission process is automated.  While the IETF   cannot rate-limit the submitters, it can manage its internal   pipelines.   This issue is exacerbated by the lack of any authentication on the   part of the submitter.  However, the IAB considers it important to be   able to accept liaison statements whether or not a liaison   relationship exists, so authentication of submitters is not an   effective control.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 20055.  Acknowledgements   This text has been prompted by discussions with numerous individuals   within IETF and other SDOs and fora, including Gary Fishman and Bert   Wijnen.  It has been developed in cooperation with [RFC4052], which   is to say with the express cooperation of the chair of the IAB,   Leslie Daigle.  Personal experiences and some "miscues" in   coordinating work across ITU-T Study Group 15 and the IETF Sub-IP   Area have also motivated this work.  Some drafts addressing   individual problems (for example,RFC 3427) make it clear that a more   general, consistent solution is needed for dealing with outside   organizations.  Certain ideas have been borrowed from these texts.   Barbara Fuller, Sunny Lee, and Michael Lee developed a prototype and   commented in detail on the document.  Their inputs directly resulted   in the appendices describing the implementation road map.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005Appendix A.  Implementation Road Map   This section documents the development program as of the time of the   writing of this document.  It is not normative.A.1.  Phase I: Initial ImplementationA.1.1.  Displays   The descriptions of the required displays inSection 3.1.1 andSection 3.1.2 call for two sets of displays: one for the public (for   viewing liaison statements), and one for submitters (for managing   liaison statements).   Displays for public view of liaison statements include:   o  A Liaison Statements Web page that lists all incoming and outgoing      liaison statements (specific fields TBD).  The title of each      liaison statement is a link to the details page for that liaison      statement.   o  A detail page for each liaison statement that contains:      *  All of the information specified in the subsections ofSection 2.2.1.      *  Links to all attachments that accompanied the liaison statement         or to documents that are mentioned in the statement but were         not provided as part of the submission.      *  Links to all related liaison statements (e.g., replies).   Displays for submitting and managing liaison statements include:   o  A summary page that offers mechanisms for:      *  Creating and submitting a new liaison statement.      *  Editing a liaison statement that the user has previously         created and submitted.      *  Acting on a liaison statement that has been assigned to the         user.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005   o  A template for creating and submitting a liaison statement.  This      template allows the user to enter the information specified inSection 2.2.1.  The user is able to access the template at any      time (from a list of liaison statements that the user has      previously created and submitted), and update and resubmit the      information.   o  A detail page for managing a liaison statement assigned to the      user.  This page is similar to the details page available to the      public.  However, it also includes:      *  A mechanism for replying to the liaison statement (initial         implementation)      *  A link to a liaison statement tracking mechanism (future         implementation)A.1.2.  Actions on Submission   Submission of a liaison statement results in the following actions:   o  The information is uploaded to the database.   o  An e-mail message with the content specified inSection 3.1.1 is      sent to the addressee with copies to the addresses specified inSection 4.1, and to the Secretariat (as specified in [RFC4052]).   o  The liaison statement is added to the list on the Liaison      Statements Web page.   o  Two detail pages are created for the liaison statement: one for      the public (to view the liaison statement), and one for the sender      and the assignee (to manage the liaison statement).   As specified inSection 3.2.2.4, when a user selects reply on the   details page of a liaison statement, a template for creating and   submitting a new liaison statement is generated from the existing one   that copies "From" to "To" and specifies the respondent as the   individual the response is coming "From".  Submission of this reply   liaison statement results in the same set of actions as submission of   any new liaison statement.  In addition, a link to the details page   of this liaison statement is added to the list of related liaison   statements on the details pages (both public and management) of the   original liaison statement (i.e., the one to which the user replied).Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005Appendix B.  Phase II: Additional Instrumentation and Responses to Usage             Experience   This section is for information, and is not normative.   The intended features of the future liaison statement tracking system   are discussed inSection 3.1.  They include mechanisms for:   o  Designating an assignee; the assignee is initially a person      associated with the body (IAB, IESG, Area, WG, etc.) to which the      liaison statement is addressed, but may subsequently be changed by      an IETF participant.   o  Indicating the status of the liaison statement (e.g., actions      required, actions taken, etc.  Specific options TBD).   o  Sending ticklers to the assignee when action is required (with      copies to whomever is appropriate).   o  Changing the status of the liaison statement, the deadline, or      other attributes.   o  Reassigning responsibility.   o  Closing the liaison statement.Normative References   [RFC4052]  Daigle, L., "IAB Processes for Management of Liaison              Relationships",RFC 4052, April 2005.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005Authors' Addresses   Stephen J. Trowbridge   Lucent Technologies   1200 West 120th Avenue, Suite 232, Room 34Z07   Westminster, Colorado  80234-2795   USA   Phone: +1 303 920 6545   Fax:   +1 303 920 6553   EMail: sjtrowbridge@lucent.com   Scott Bradner   Harvard University   29 Oxford St.   Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138   USA   Phone: +1 617 495 3864   Fax:   +1 617 492 8835   EMail: sob@harvard.edu   Fred Baker   Cisco Systems   1121 Via Del Rey   Santa Barbara, California  93117   USA   Phone: +1-408-526-4257   Fax:   +1-413-473-2403   EMail: fred@cisco.comTrowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 18]

RFC 4053             Handling of Liaison Statements           April 2005Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors   retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-   ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Trowbridge, et al.       Best Current Practice                 [Page 19]