We now have a fair amount of guidance on how to work with other
SDO's in general, which would certainly include ITU-T. Just to
"IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships,"
BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005.
"Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF,"
BCP 103, RFC 4053, April 2005.
"Guidelines for Acting as an IETF Liaison to Another Organization,"
RFC 4691, October 2006.
We also have some specific guidance on extensions, when another
SDO sees a need for IETF protocols to be extended to meet their
draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-04.txt (approved as a BCP, in RFC queue).
A lot of IEPREP work seems to belong in the extensions category.
The question in my mind is whether the IEPREP work items are in the
category where we can be confident that these mechanisms are sufficient
(i.e., we can rely on another SDO to provide realistic requirements
in the form of liaisons) or whether we need the requirements to be
developed in the IETF to get them right (i.e., realistic in terms of
what Internet technology can actually achieve). I think the history
of work related to IEPREP shows that it's all too easy for people
steeped in the connection-oriented world to come up with unrealisable
requirements for a packet network.
Ietf mailing list