RFC 6756

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) RFC 6756 ✨

Okay bestie, this one is the IAB's collab guide between the ITU-T and the IETF, and it's giving diplomacy arc 🌸 It's an Informational doc (so not a Standards Track spec, no cap), written by a whole squad of editors: S. Trowbridge (Alcatel-Lucent), E. Lear (Cisco Systems), G. Fishman (Pearlfisher International) and S. Bradner (Harvard University). It dates from September 2012, it obsoletes RFC 3356 💅, and it's ISSN 2070-1721 if you're keeping receipts 🧾

The ITU-T and IETF are doing a joint-venture energy here, so the whole point is "identify your topics early and talk to each other with mutual respect" 🫶

Part 1 of 3 means we're covering the title stuff, the Abstract, the Status and Copyright vibes, the Table of Contents, Section 1, and the start of Section 2. More parts are coming, so stay tuned 🦋

Abstract

This doc gives you guidance for understanding how the ITU-T (the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the International Telecommunication Union) and the IETF (of the Internet Society, ISOC) collab on standards development 🌈 It's an update of and obsoletes RFC 3356, because a lot has changed in both orgs since 3356 was written 👑 Most of the text is shared with ITU-T A Series Supplement 3 (07/2012) 💜

Note: TSAG approved this on 4 July 2012 as Supplement 3 to the ITU-T A-Series of Recommendations 🎀

Status of This Memo

This is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published for informational purposes only, so no vibes of mandatory compliance here 🙈

It's a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), basically the IAB's permanent record of info they think is valuable 📚 It reflects the IAB consensus. Docs the IAB approves for publication are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 5741 ✨

Info about the current status, errata, and how to give feedback lives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6756 🦋

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 💖

This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Read those carefully, they spell out your rights and restrictions 🧚

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Scope ..........................................4
2. Guidance on Collaboration .......................................5
   2.1. How to Interact on ITU-T or IETF Work Items ................5
        2.1.1. How the ITU-T Is Informed about Existing
               IETF Work Items .....................................6
        2.1.2. How the IETF Is Informed about Existing
               ITU-T Work Items ....................................6
        2.1.3. How the ITU-T Is Informed about Proposed New
               IETF Work Items .....................................6
        2.1.4. How the IETF Is Informed about ITU-T Work Items .....7
   2.2. Representation .............................................7
        2.2.1. IETF Recognition at ITU-T ...........................7
        2.2.2. ITU-T Recognition at ISOC/IETF ......................7
   2.3. Communication outside of Meetings ..........................8
   2.4. Mailing Lists ..............................................8
   2.5. Document Sharing ...........................................9
        2.5.1. Contributions and Liaison Statements from
               the IETF to ITU-T ...................................9
        2.5.2. Contributions and Liaison Statements from
               the ITU-T to IETF ..................................10
        2.5.3. ITU-T and IETF .....................................10
   2.6. Simple Cross Referencing ..................................11
   2.7. Preliminary Work Efforts ..................................11
   2.8. Additional Items ..........................................11
        2.8.1. IETF Information That May Be Useful to
               ITU-T Participants .................................11
        2.8.2. ITU-T Information That May Be Useful to
               IETF Participants ..................................12
3. Security Considerations ........................................13
4. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
5. References .....................................................13
   5.1. Normative References ......................................13
   5.2. Informative References ....................................14
6. Changes since RFC 3356 .........................................15
7. IAB Members at the Time of Approval ............................15

1. Introduction and Scope 🌸

1.1. Introduction

This doc gives non-normative guidance to help you understand how the ITU-T and the IETF of ISOC collab on standards dev 💅 Spotting topics of mutual interest early lets the two orgs do constructive work built on mutual respect 🫶

In the IETF, the work happens in working groups (WGs), mostly over open public mailing lists instead of in-person meetings 📬 WGs are grouped into areas, and each area is run by two co-area directors. Together, the area directors make up the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) 👑

In the ITU-T, the work is defined by study Questions, mostly worked on in meetings led by rapporteurs (sometimes called "rapporteur's group" meetings) 🎀 Questions are usually grouped into working parties (WPs) led by a WP chairman, and the WPs report up to a parent study group (SG) led by an SG chairman 🦋 Work can also happen in ITU-T focus groups (see Section 2.7) ✨

To keep the ITU-T and IETF talking, it's important to identify and set up contact points in each org 💖 Contact points may include:

1. ITU-T Study Group Chairman and IETF Area Director

An IETF area director oversees a major focus of activity, with a scope similar to an ITU-T study group chairman 👑 Both roles are relatively long-term (several years), so they give the two orgs stable contact points for a given topic 🧚

2. ITU-T Rapporteur and IETF Working Group Chair

An IETF working group chair leads the work on a specific task within one particular area, with a scope similar to an ITU-T rapporteur 💜 These are working positions (a year or more) that typically end when the work on that topic ends. Collaboration here is super beneficial to make sure the actual work gets done 🔥

3. Other Contact Points

It can be beneficial to set up extra contact points for specific topics of mutual interest 🌈 These should be established early in the work effort, and sometimes each org's contact point can be the same person 🫶 ITU-T has an extra level of management, the working party chairman, and from time to time it may be beneficial for that person to exchange views with IETF working group chairs and area directors 💅

Note: The current list of IETF area directors and working group chairs can be found in the IETF working group charters. The current ITU-T study group chairmen and rapporteurs are listed on the ITU-T study group web pages 🎀

2. Guidance on Collaboration 🦋

This section describes how the existing processes within the IETF and ITU-T can be used to enable collab between the orgs ✨

2.1. How to Interact on ITU-T or IETF Work Items 💖

Study groups that have identified work topics related to the Internet Protocol (IP) should evaluate how those relate to topics defined in the IETF 🧚 Current IETF working groups and their charters (the IETF's definition of the scope of work) are listed in the IETF archives (see Section 2.8.1) 📚

A study group may decide that developing a Recommendation on a particular topic could benefit from collaborating with the IETF 🌸 The study group should note this collaboration in its work plan (specifically in each involved Question's plan), describing the goal of the collab and its expected outcome 💜

An IETF working group should also evaluate and identify areas of relationship with the ITU-T, and document the collab with the ITU-T study group in its charter 👑

The following sections outline a process that either group can use to stay informed about the other's new work items 🫶

2.1.1. How the ITU-T Is Informed about Existing IETF Work Items 🌈

It's up to individual study groups to review the current IETF working groups and figure out if there are any topics of mutual interest 🔍 WG charters and active Internet-Drafts are on the IETF website (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/) 💅 If a study group spots a common area of work, its leadership should contact both the IETF working group chair and the responsible area director(s) 🎀 This may come with a formal liaison statement (see Section 2.3) 🦋

2.1.2. How the IETF Is Informed about Existing ITU-T Work Items 💜

The IETF, through its representatives, will review the current work of the various study groups from time to time 🌸 Each ITU-T study group's web page lists its current Questions and its current work programme ✨ When an area or working group spots a common area of work, the matter gets referred to the appropriate working group chairs and area directors, who may consider sending a liaison statement to the appropriate study group 🫶

---

Part 1 of 3 is done, bestie 🎀 Part 2 picks up from Section 2.1.3, so keep an eye out 👀

2.1.3. How the ITU-T Is Informed about Proposed New IETF Work Items 📬

okay so the IETF runs a mailing list just for passing around proposed new work items between standards development orgs 💌 Lots of these show up first in proposed Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) sessions and draft working group charters. The IETF forwards all such draft charters for new and revised working groups, plus BOF session announcements, to the IETF new-work mailing list. An ITU-T mailing list is subscribed to that list, and study group leadership may subscribe to this ITU-T mailing list, which the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) maintains. 🌸 Members of the SG-specific listname may include the SG chairman, SG vice-chairmen, working party chairmen, concerned rapporteurs, other experts designated by the SG, and the SG Counsellor. This is how SGs keep an eye on new work items for possible overlap or interest to their study group 👀 Expect a few messages per month, fr.

Each SG chairman, or designated representative, may comment on these charters by replying to the IESG mailing list at iesg@ietf.org, clearly indicating their ITU-T position and the nature of their concern. Plain-text email is preferred on the IESG mailing list, so keep it simple, bestie 💅

It should be noted that the IETF turnaround time for new working group charters can be as short as two weeks ⏰ So the mailing list should be consistently monitored. No sleeping on it, periodt 💀

2.1.4. How the IETF Is Informed about ITU-T Work Items 🧚

the ITU-T accepts new areas of work through the creation or update of Questions, and you can find these on the ITU-T study group web pages 🦋 The ITU-T work programme is also documented on each ITU-T study group's web page on the ITU-T website, so there's a whole trail to follow ✨

Study groups send updates to the IETF new-work mailing list as new Questions are first drafted or created, as terms of reference for Questions are first drafted or updated, or otherwise when there is reason to believe that a particular effort might be of interest to the IETF 📮 Area directors or WG chairs should provide comments through liaison statements or direct email to the relevant SG chairman in cases of possible overlap or interest. Main character collab energy 🎀

2.2. Representation 🫶

ISOC, including its standards body IETF, is a Sector Member of the ITU-T. As a result, ISOC delegates are afforded the same rights as other ITU-T Sector Members (see Section 2.2.1) 👑 Conversely, ITU-T delegates may participate in the work of the IETF as representatives of the ITU-T (see Section 2.2.2). To promote collaboration, it is useful to facilitate communication between the organizations, as further described below 💖

2.2.1. IETF Recognition at ITU-T 🌈

Experts and representatives from the IETF who are chosen by IETF leadership normally participate in ITU-T meetings as ISOC delegates 🦋 The ISOC focal point will facilitate registration and verification of these people, as appropriate.

2.2.2. ITU-T Recognition at ISOC/IETF 🍓

ITU-T study group chairmen can authorize one or more members to attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate, speaking authoritatively on behalf of the activities of the study group (or a particular rapporteur group) 🎀 The study group chairman sends the ITU-T list of delegates by email to the working group chair, with a copy to the area directors, and also to the study group. According to IETF process, opinions expressed by any such delegate are given equal weight with opinions expressed by any other working group participant. Everyone's voice counts, iykyk 🫶

2.3. Communication outside of Meetings 💬

Informal communication between contact points and experts of both organizations is encouraged 🌸 However, formal communication from an ITU-T study group, working party, or rapporteur group to an associated IETF contact point must be explicitly approved and identified as coming from the study group, working party, or rapporteur group, respectively. Formal liaison statements from the ITU-T to the IETF are transmitted according to the procedures described in RFC 4053 [2] 📜 These liaison statements are placed by the IETF onto a liaison statements web page at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/. An individual at the IETF is assigned responsibility for dealing with each liaison statement that is received. The name and contact information of the responsible person, along with any applicable deadline, is listed with the links to the liaison statement on this web page 🗂️

Formal liaison statements from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the IESG, the IETF, or an IETF working group or area to the ITU-T are generated, approved, and transmitted according to the procedures described in RFC 4053 [2] and Recommendation ITU-T A.1 [15] 🧚 Formal communication is intended to allow the sharing of positions between the IETF and the ITU-T outside of actual documents (as described in Section 2.5.1). This covers things like comments on documents and requests for input 🙈

2.4. Mailing Lists 📭

All IETF working groups and all ITU-T study group Questions have associated mailing lists ✨

In the IETF, the mailing list is the primary vehicle for discussion and decision-making 👑 It is recommended that ITU-T experts interested in particular IETF working group topics subscribe to and participate in these lists. IETF WG mailing lists are open to all subscribers, and the subscription and archive info is noted in each working group's charter. In the ITU-T, the TSB has set up formal mailing lists for Questions, working parties, and other topics within study groups (more detail is on the ITU-T web site) 🌷 These are typically used for ITU-T correspondence, including technical discussion, meeting logistics, reports, and so on.

Note: Individual subscribers to this list must be affiliated with an ITU-T member or associate. At this time, there is no blanket inclusion of all IETF participants as members, however, as a member, the ISOC focal point can facilitate access by IETF technical experts, liaison representatives, or liaison managers 🥺

IETF participants may subscribe to ITU-T focus group email lists if they are individuals from a country that is a member of the ITU-T 🌍

2.5. Document Sharing 📂

During the course of ITU-T and IETF collaboration, it is important to share working drafts and documents among the technical working groups 🫶 Initially proposed concepts and specifications typically can be circulated by email (often just repeating the concept and not including the details of the specification) on both the IETF and ITU-T mailing lists. In addition, working texts (or URLs) of draft Recommendations, Internet-Drafts, or RFCs may also be sent between the organizations, as described below 💌

Internet-Drafts are available on the IETF web site 🦋 The ITU-T can make selected ITU-T documents at any stage of development available to the IETF by attaching them to a formal liaison statement. Although a communication can point to a URL where a non-ASCII document (e.g., Word) can be downloaded, attachments in proprietary formats to an IETF mailing list are discouraged 🙅 It should also be recognized that the official versions of all IETF documents are in ASCII 🔥

2.5.1. Contributions and Liaison Statements from the IETF to ITU-T 🌸

IETF documents (e.g., Internet-Drafts), or URLs of those documents, are most commonly transmitted to ITU-T study groups as liaison statements (see RFC 4053 [2]). They can exceptionally be submitted to a study group as a contribution from ISOC in accordance with Recommendation ITU-T A.2 [16] 🎀 To make sure the IETF has properly authorized this, the IETF working group must agree that the specific drafts are of mutual interest, that there is a benefit in forwarding them to the ITU-T for review, comment, and potential use, and that the document status is accurately represented in the cover letter 📝 Once agreed, the appropriate area directors review the working group request and give approval. The rules of the IETF Trust are followed in these circumstances [3] ⚖️ The contributions are then forwarded (with the noted approval) to the TSB for circulation as a contribution to the appropriate ITU-T study group.

Material submitted to the ITU-T as an ISOC contribution is governed by clause 3.1.5 of Recommendation ITU-T A.1 [15]. Any such contribution will be made only after receiving necessary approval of the owners of the work in question 🙏 In other circumstances, a liaison statement may be appropriate. See RFC 5378 [3] and Recommendation ITU-T A.1 [15] for more information 📚

2.5.2. Contributions and Liaison Statements from the ITU-T to IETF 🧚‍♀️

An ITU-T study group or working party may send texts of draft new or revised Recommendations, clearly indicating their status, to the IETF as contributions in the form of liaison statements or Internet-Drafts 💖 Internet-Drafts are IETF temporary documents that expire six months after being published ⏳ The study group or working party must decide that there is a benefit in forwarding them to the IETF for review, comment, and potential use. Terms of reference for rapporteur group meetings may authorize rapporteur groups to send working documents, in the form of Internet-Drafts, to the IETF 🦄

If the study group or working party elects to transmit the text as an Internet-Draft, the document editor would be instructed to prepare the contribution in Internet-Draft format (in ASCII and optionally postscript format, as per RFC 2223 [8]) and upload it via https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi. Material submitted as an Internet-Draft, or intended for inclusion in an Internet-Draft or RFC, is governed by the rules set forth in RFCs 5378 [3], 3979 [4], and 4879 [5] ⚖️ Alternatively, the study group, working party, or rapporteur group could attach the text to a formal liaison statement 🌈

Both the rapporteur and the document editor should be identified as contacts in the contribution 🫶 The document should also clearly indicate the state of development in a particular ITU-T study group.

Note: Liaison statements and their attachments sent to the IETF are made publicly available on the IETF web site 📢

2.5.3. ITU-T and IETF 🌷

It is envisaged that the processes of Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 will often be used simultaneously by both an IETF working group and an ITU-T study group to collaborate on a topic of mutual interest 🤝

It is also envisaged that the outcome of the collaboration will be the documentation in full by one body, and its referencing by the other (see Section 2.6 for details) 💜 That is, common or joint text is discouraged, because of the current differences in procedures for document approval and revision. Where complementary work is being undertaken in both organizations that will result in Recommendations or RFCs, due allowance should be given to the differing perspectives, working methods, and procedures of the two organizations. That is, each organization should understand the other organization's procedures and strive to respect them in the collaboration 🫶✨

2.6. Simple Cross Referencing 🔗

Okay so, Recommendation ITU-T A.5 [6] is the bit that explains how ITU-T Recommendations can point to documents from other organizations. ✨ It also covers the case where a study group or working party decides to copy another organization's text straight into a Recommendation instead of just referencing it. For anything specific to referencing IETF RFCs, check http://itu.int/ITU-T/go/ref-ietf-isoc. 💖

And then there's Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026 [7], which describes how IETF RFCs can reference other open standards, like ITU-T Recommendations. It's giving a very organized vibe 💅

2.7. Preliminary Work Efforts 🌸

Bestie, both ITU-T and IETF have ways to chat about brand-new work areas before anything officially starts. Like, before an ITU-T study group kicks off work or an IETF working group gets created, people can talk it through early. It's so smart 🧠✨

For ITU-T, the rules for creating and running focus groups are in Recommendation ITU-T A.7 [17]. Focus groups usually pop up in new areas where people need deliverables on a specific topic fast, like on a tight timeline 🏃‍♀️💨 Also, IETF participants who aren't ITU-T members or associates can still participate fully in focus group work, as long as they're from a country that's an ITU-T member. Iconic access 👑

On the IETF side, RFC 5434 [13] is the guide for BOF sessions. Stuff that hasn't reached the working group stage yet can get discussed at a BOF 🦋 These sessions usually check how much interest there is in actually forming working groups. And sometimes the conversation keeps going on mailing lists afterward 📬

2.8. Additional Items 🎀

2.8.1. IETF Information That May Be Useful to ITU-T Participants 📚

Want to learn how the IETF works? The informative references and the links below have you covered 🫶 Here's the list:

Note: RFCs do not change after they are published.  Rather, they are
either obsoleted or updated by other RFCs.  Such updates are tracked
in the rfc-index.txt file.

Current list and status of all IETF RFCs:
   ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt

Current list and description of all IETF Internet-Drafts:
   ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.txt

Current list of IETF working groups and their Charters: (includes
area directors and chair contacts, mailing list information, etc.)
   http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter.html

Current list of registered BOFs
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/

RFC Editor pages about publishing RFCs, including available tools and
lots of guidance:
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html

Current list of liaison statements:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/

IETF Intellectual Property Rights Policy and Notices:
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr/

The Tao of the IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering
Task Force:
   http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

Quick heads-up 💀: RFCs never change once they're published. Instead, a newer RFC either obsoletes them or updates them, and you can track all of that in the rfc-index.txt file 🗂️ Very important, very neat.

2.8.2. ITU-T Information That May Be Useful to IETF Participants 🌍

Info about the ITU-T lives in the informative references and at these links 💜

ITU-T Main page:
   http://itu.int/ITU-T

List of all ITU-T Recommendations:
   http://itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/

ITU-T study group main page for Study Group NN (where NN is the
2-digit SG number):
   http://itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/comNN/

Intellectual Property policies, forms, and databases:
   http://itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/default.aspx

Current list of active ITU-T focus Groups
   http://itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/Pages/default.aspx

ITU-T Procedures including:
   WTSA Resolution 1, Rules of procedure of the ITU Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
   WTSA Resolution 2, Study Group responsibility and mandates
   http://itu.int/publ/T-RES/en

Author's Guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations:
   http://itu.int/ITU-T/go/author-guide

Templates for contributions, ITU-T Recommendations, and liaison
statements:
   http://itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/templates/index.html

3. Security Considerations 🔐

Okay, real talk, this one's short but sweet ✨ Documents that describe cooperation procedures, like this one, have no direct Internet security implications. So no scary plot twists here 🙈

4. Acknowledgements 🫶

This document is based on the text from RFCs 2436 and 3356 [10] 💕 It also got a ton of help from discussions at the January 2012 ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) meeting. Teamwork makes the dream work 🌈

5. References 📖

5.1. Normative References 🔒

[1]   Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "IAB
      Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships", BCP
      102, RFC 4052, April 2005.

[2]   Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for
      Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF", BCP 103, RFC
      4053, April 2005.

[3]   Bradner, S., Ed., and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights Contributors
      Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.

[4]   Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
      Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.

[5]   Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
      Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.

[6]   Recommendation ITU-T A.5 (2008), Generic procedures for
      including references to documents of other organizations in
      ITU-T Recommendations, International Telecommunication Union.

5.2. Informative References 🌷

[7]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
      BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[8]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC
      2223, October 1997.

[9]   Brett, R., Bradner, S., and G. Parsons, "Collaboration between
      ISOC/IETF and ITU-T", RFC 2436, October 1998.

[10]  Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task Force
      and International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunications
      Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines", RFC 3356,
      August 2002.

[11]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
      IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.

[12]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
      BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

[13]  Narten, T., "Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-
      Feather (BOF) Session", RFC 5434, February 2009.

[14]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP 95, RFC
      3935, October 2004.

[15]  Recommendation ITU-T A.1 (2008), Work methods for study groups
      of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T),
      International Telecommunication Union.

[16]  Recommendation ITU-T A.2 (2008), Presentation of contributions
      to the ITU-T, International Telecommunication Union.

[17]  Recommendation ITU-T A.7 (2008), Focus groups: Working methods
      and procedures, International Telecommunication Union.

[18]  Recommendation ITU-T A.8 (2008), Alternative approval process
      for new and revised ITU-T Recommendations, International
      Telecommunication Union.

6. Changes since RFC 3356 🍓

Here's what's new since RFC 3356 💅

• The introduction got merged into the scope section, so it's all one vibe now ✨
• More info about copyright and IPR issues was added 📜
• The rules for authorizing liaison managers and liaison representatives from IETF to ITU-T were updated to match current IETF procedures in [1] 🤝
• Formal liaison statements between ITU-T and IETF now get sent using the current IETF procedures in [2] 📨
• Preliminary efforts got their own section, covering ITU-T focus groups and IETF BOFs 🧚 ITU-T focus group participation is also no longer limited to ITU-T members 🙌
• Obsolete URLs from both the ITU-T and IETF websites were fixed, and more references got moved into the References section 🔗

7. IAB Members at the Time of Approval 👑

These were the IAB members when this was approved 🌟

Bernard Aboba
Jari Arkko
Marc Blanchet
Ross Callon
Alissa Cooper
Spencer Dawkins
Joel Halpern
Russ Housley
David Kessens
Danny McPherson
Jon Peterson
Dave Thaler
Hannes Tschofenig

---

Authors' Addresses 💌

Steve Trowbridge
Alcatel-Lucent
5280 Centennial Trail
Boulder, CO 80303-1262 USA

Phone: +1 720 945 6885
EMail: steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com


Eliot Lear
Cisco Systems GmbH
Richtistrasse 7
8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland

Phone: +41 44 878 9200
EMail: lear@cisco.com


Gary Fishman
Pearlfisher International
12 Chestnut Drive
Matawan, NJ 07747

Phone: +1 732 778 9572
EMail: gryfishman@aol.com


Scott Bradner
Harvard University
1 Oxford St.
Cambridge, MA 02138

Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu

And that's a wrap on RFC 6756! 🎉🌈🦋