standardization by 4a0Bz8

VIEWS: 17 PAGES: 13

									Standardization

       Henning Schulzrinne
       Dept. of Computer Science
       Columbia University
       Fall 2003
Standards
   Mandatory vs. voluntary
     –   Allowed to use vs. likely to sell
     –   Example: health & safety standards UL listing for electrical appliances,
         fire codes
   Telecommunications and networking always focus of standardization
     –   1865: International Telegraph Union (ITU)
     –   1956: International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee
         (CCITT)
   Five major organizations:
     –   ITU for lower layers, multimedia collaboration
     –   IEEE for LAN standards (802.x)
     –   IETF for network, transport & some applications
     –   W3C for web-related technology (XML, SOAP)
     –   ISO for media content (MPEG)
Who makes the rules? - ITU

   ITU = ITU-T (telecom standardization) + ITU-R (radio) +
    development
     –   http://www.itu.int
     –   14 study groups
     –   produce Recommendations:
             E: overall network operation, telephone service (E.164)
             G: transmission system and media, digital systems and networks
              (G.711)
             H: audiovisual and multimedia systems (H.323)
             I: integrated services digital network (I.210); includes ATM
             V: data communications over the telephone network (V.24)
             X: Data networks and open system communications
             Y: Global information infrastructure and internet protocol aspects
ITU

   Initially, national delegations
   Members: state, sector, associate
    –   Membership fees (> 10,500 SFr)
   Now, mostly industry groups doing work
   Initially, mostly (international) telephone services
   Now, transition from circuit-switched to packet-
    switched universe & lower network layers (optical)
   Documents cost SFr, but can get three freebies for
    each email address
IETF

   IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)
     –   see RFC 3233 (“Defining the IETF”)
   Formed 1986, but earlier predecessor organizations (1979-)
   RFCs date back to 1969
   Initially, largely research organizations and universities, now
    mostly R&D labs of equipment vendors and ISPs
   International, but 2/3 United States
     –   meetings every four months
     –   about 300 companies participating in meetings
             but Cisco, Ericsson, Lucent, Nokia, etc. send large delegations
IETF
   Supposed to be engineering, i.e., translation of well-understood
    technology  standards
     –   make choices, ensure interoperability
     –   reality: often not so well defined
   Most development work gets done in working groups (WGs)
     –   specific task, then dissolved (but may last 10 years…)
     –   typically, small clusters of authors, with large peanut gallery
     –   open mailing list discussion for specific problems
     –   interim meetings (1-2 days) and IETF meetings (few hours)
     –   published as Internet Drafts (I-Ds)
              anybody can publish draft-somebody-my-new-protocol
              also official working group documents (draft-ietf-wg-*)
              versioned (e.g., draft-ietf-avt-rtp-10.txt)
              automatically disappear (expire) after 6 months
IETF process

   WG develops  WG last call  IETF last call 
    approval (or not) by IESG  publication as RFC
   IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group) consists
    of area directors – they vote on proposals
    –   areas = applications, general, Internet, operations and
        management, routing, security, sub-IP, transport
   Also, Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
    –   provides architectural guidance
    –   approves new working groups
    –   process appeals
IETF activities
   general (3): ipr, nomcom, problem
   applications (25): crisp, geopriv, impp, ldapbis, lemonade, opes,
    provreg, simple, tn3270e, usefor, vpim, webdav, xmpp
   internet (18) = IPv4, IPv6, DNS, DHCP: dhc, dnsext, ipoib,
    itrace, mip4, nemo, pana, zeroconf
   oam (22) = SNMP, RADIUS, DIAMETER: aaa, v6ops, netconf,
    …
   routing (13): forces, ospf, ssm, udlr, …
   security (18): idwg, ipsec, openpgp, sasl, smime, syslog, tls,
    xmldsig, …
   subip (5) = “layer 2.5”: ccamp, ipo, mpls, tewg
   transport (26): avt (RTP), dccp, enum, ieprep, iptel, megaco,
    mmusic (RTSP), nsis, rohc, sip, sipping (SIP), spirits, tsvwg
RFCs

   Originally, “Request for Comment”
   now, mostly standards documents that are well
    settled
   published RFCs never change
   always ASCII (plain text), sometimes PostScript
   anybody can submit RFC, but may be delayed by
    review (“end run avoidance”)
   see April 1 RFCs (RFC 1149, 3251, 3252)
   accessible at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ and
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/
IETF process issues

   Can take several years to publish a standard
     –   see draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement
   Relies on authors and editors to keep moving
     –   often, busy people with “day jobs”  spurts three times a year
   Lots of opportunities for small groups to delay things
   Original idea of RFC standards-track progression:
     –   Proposed Standard (PS) = kind of works
     –   Draft Standard (DS) = solid, interoperability tested (2 interoperable
         implementations for each feature), but not necessarily widely used
     –   Standard (S) = well tested, widely deployed
IETF process issues

   Reality: very few protocols progress beyond PS
    –   and some widely-used protocols are only I-Ds
   In addition: Informational, Best Current Practice
    (BCP), Experimental, Historic
   Early IETF: simple protocols, stand-alone
    –   TCP, HTTP, DNS, BGP, …
   Now: systems of protocols, with security,
    management, configuration and scaling
    –   lots of dependencies  wait for others to do their job
Other Internet standards organizations

   ISOC (Internet Society)
     –   legal umbrella for IETF, development work
   IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
     –   assigns protocol constants
   NANOG (North American Network Operators Group)
    (http://www.nanog.org)
     –   operational issues
     –   holds nice workshop with measurement and “real world” papers
   RIPE, ARIN, APNIC
     –   regional IP address registries  dole out chunks of address space
         to ISPs
     –   routing table management
ICANN

   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
    and Numbers
    –   manages IP address space (at top level)
    –   DNS top-level domains (TLD)
            ccTLD: country codes (.us, .uk, …)
            gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org)
            uTLD (unsponsored): .biz, .info, .name, and .pro
            sTLD (sponsored): .aero, .coop, and .museum
   actual domains handled by registrars

								
To top