1 / 16

IMTC Standards First!™ Working Rules and Guidelines

Establishing simple and effective working rules for IMTC to facilitate smoother collaboration and timely progress with external bodies. Includes guidelines on liaising, submitting contributions, and conducting AG activities.

hall-franklin
Télécharger la présentation

IMTC Standards First!™ Working Rules and Guidelines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Standards First!™

  2. IMTC TSC/WG StructureJim PolizottoIMTC Secretary Standards First!™

  3. Work Group Structure Education & Promotion WG Requirements WG Liaisons to Standards White papers/News Items/Web Pages Legend Work Group Application & Service Profiles Output from WG Protocols & Systems WG Network Infrastructure WG IMTC Test Event Flow Profiles & Test Plans Interoperability Events

  4. WG and AG Structure Requirements WG aHIT! Applications iNOW! Directory Services Mobility Protocols & Systems WG H.323 H.248/Megaco SIP Voice Coder H.320 Data Collab. H.324 M Network Infrastructue WG QoS & Performance IP Security Mobility Directory Services IPv6 Education & Promotion WG Marketing AG

  5. Liaisons • Generate contributions: • RFC’s • TD’s • Submit contributions to standards bodies: • ITU-T • IETF • ETSI TIPHON • TTC • TIA

  6. We need simple working rules... • Work can not be hold up, because of lack of agreed and documented IMTC working rules • Rules shall be very simple, should support work progress, shall not provide bureaucratic barriers • Let us agree now. If in practice not practical, - based on feedback we will adjust them, asap. • Proposal: Rules shall be „in force“ right from now. • The following proposed rules are based on principles used by other standards bodies / fora:

  7. How to „liaise“? • WG, AGs should „liaise“ (e.g. a requirement list, a reported bug from interop) as autonomous units „peer to peer“ (e.g. AG vs. ITU-T Rapp. Group; WG vs ITU-T WP; IMTC vs ITU SG) in their own responsibility and only in their name. „Best delivery“ according to the rules of the resp. External bodies. • Group prepares liaison by consensus work, group leader puts up for voting when „mature enough“ (he decides) • Approval of the liaison by „consensus“ at a F2F meeting, or • Open electronic approval process of the liasion (7 days notice over the respective E-mail reflector; 51% approval sent to the Secretariat needed of those members who have replied) • Liaison sent / received / logged / documented / archived by the IMTC Secretariat, who act as formal liaison contacts (a suitable technical IMTC contact named should also be added).

  8. How to submit contributions to external bodies? • WG, AGs should submit contributions (e.g. a draft standard, an IMTC profile) as autonomous units „peer to peer“ (e.g. AG vs. ITU-T Rapp. Group; WG vs ITU-T WP; IMTC vs ITU SG) in their own responsibility and only in their name. „Best delivery“ according to rules of the ext. Bodies. • Group prepares contribution by consensus work, group leader puts up for voting when „mature enough“ (he decides) • Approval of contribution by „consensus“ at a F2F meeting, or • Open electronic approval process of the contribution (7 days notice over the respective E-mail reflector; 51% approval sent to the Secretariat needed of those IMTC members who have replied) • Contribution sent / received / logged / documented / archived by the IMTC Secretariat, who act as formal liaison contacts (a suitable technical IMTC contact named should also be added).

  9. AG QuestionnaireProtocols & Systems WG Activity Group ParticipateInterest • H.323 Interop 8 15 • SIP Interop 8 12 • H.248/Megaco 5 5 • Media Processing 5 2 • H.320 Interop 3 5 • PSS 2 5 • H.324 M 1 5 • Data Collaboration 1 4

  10. AG QuestionnaireNetwork Infrastructure WG Activity Group ParticipateInterest • QoS & Perf. 4 15 • IP Security 3 6 • IPv6 3 5 • Mobility 1 4 • Directory Svcs. 0 3

  11. Req’ts & Marketing WGs Activity Group ParticipateInterest • iNOW! 5 3 • Marketing 4 2 • Applications 1 3 • aHIT 1 2

  12. Protocols & Systems WG Chair: Patrick Luthi Activity Groups • H.320 Interop Chair: John Sangermano • H.323 Interop Chair: Anatoli Levine • SIP Interop Chair: Mark Grosen • H.324 M Chair: Bernhard Wimmer • H.248/Megaco Chair: TBD • Media Processing Co-chair: Alok De, Dave Lindbergh, Imre Varga • Data Collaboration Chair: Chuck Grandgent • PSS Chair: Adi Plaut

  13. Network Infrastructure WG Chair: Greg Meyer Activity Groups • QoS & Perf. Chair: Ken Kalinoski • IP Security Chair: Steve Davies • Mobility Chair: Senthil Sengodan Co-chair: Sridhar Ramachandran • IPv6 Chair: Hemanth Dattareya • Directory Svcs. Chair: TBD

  14. Requirements WG Chair: Dave Lindbergh Activity Groups • aHIT Chair: TBD • iNOW! Chair: Jim Yu • Applications Chair: TBD

  15. Education & Promotion WG Chair: Carole Hodges Activity Group • Education Chair: Carole Hodges & Mktg Co-chair: KarenFrazier • PR Contact: Bob Rinklin, Bender Hammerling

  16. Working method needed • Goal: focusing, to avoid „aging“ of groups • When to set up an AG group? • When to declare it closed? • What when „critical mass“ too low for too long? • What is results are coming out too slow? And not enough contributions? • Look at the IETF (closing down a group is a signal of success – „work done“ – and not a signal of „national disaster“)

More Related