1 / 13

Standardization

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

rob
Download Presentation

Standardization

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. Standardization Henning Schulzrinne Dept. of Computer Science Columbia University Fall 2003

  2. 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)

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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/

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

More Related