¶ Broadband Forum (BBF) Liaison Relationship
Under Construction
For the BBF organizational structure and "How we work", see:
https://www.broadband-forum.org/about-bbf/how-we-work
There is no formal liaison agreement, memorandum of understanding or documented relationship or interaction guidance between the Broadband Forum and the IETF/IAB/ISOC. Historically there has been no need for this level of formality and the two organizations cooperate or coordinate quite well with each other per the methods outlined below.
The liaison relationships between BBF and IETF are managed by two roles, one in each organization:
- IETF Liaison Manager to BBF - represents the IETF view/position and helps BBF (including the BBF Liaison Officer) with IETF process, communications and culture. Contact Info: bbf-liaison@ietf.org
- BBF Liaison Officer to IETF - represents the BBF view/position and helps IETF (including the IETF Liaison Manager) with BBF process, communications and culture. Contact Info: See links below.
Note: The two roles may be assigned to the same person, provided they understand the nuances of representing both roles and can keep them independent and separated.
BBF information concerning liaison partners, including liaison communication process and the BBF Liaison Officer to IETF, can be found here: https://www.broadband-forum.org/about-bbf/liaison-partners
BBF published, completed works are publically available for free in most cases. See:
https://wiki.broadband-forum.org/display/RESOURCES/Broadband+Forum+Published+Resources
and
https://wiki.broadband-forum.org/
for details.
Work in progress: Since the BBF is a membership organization, only company members have acccess to the BBF document facilities for work in progress. This includes much of the liaison information, e.g., liaison officers, liaison repository, etc., are private access restricted to members only.
Most liaison activity between the BBF and the IETF is communicated between the BBF Technical Committee and its Work Areas (similar to IETF Areas) and Project Streams (similar to IETF Working Groups). Liaisons between the organizations should be addressed
- per the BBF liaison guidance noted above
AND
- as specific to the intended recipient group as possible (e.g., BBF Work Area)
As noted, please see the links to the BBF liaison partner guidance above for relevant BBF email addresses and contact informtion when sending liaisons. As for all liaison relationships, the liaison manager should be contacted before sending a liaison statemnet. The liaison manager can then also help with mapping this information to the IETF Datatracker Liaison Management Tool.
Because BBF is a membership organization, the following should be considered in all communication with the BBF:
- as a company membership organization, individuals attending the BBF and with access to BBF private materials and information are not at liberty to share said information unless it has been explicitly conveyed via official, written BBF liaison to the IETF, IESG and/or specific working groups. Individuals conveying work in progress, or other private BBF information (including BBF contributions) outside of a written liaison are most likely in violation of their BBF membership agreement. Such occurances should be brought to the attention of the IETF Liaison Manager to the BBF AND the BBF Liaison Officer to the IETF.
- The BBF Liaison Officer to IETF is the only individual authorized to speak on behalf of the BBF. Even then, they must do so within the confines of explicit, written liaisons to the IETF. (Per BBF process, only explicit, written liaisons represent an official BBF membership consensus view and information.) Individuals speaking or conveying information beyond what is contained in explicit written liaison AND without authorization from the BBF Liaison Officer are not authorized to speak on behalf of the BBF and are likely in violation of their company's BBF membership agreement. For details on the BBF Liaison Officer to IETF, please see see the link above or the IETF Liaison Manager to the BBF (bbf-liaison@ietf.org)
¶ Notes on Coordination vs. Cooperation vs. Collaboration (and Joint) work and meetings
The differences between coordination, cooperation and collaboration (including "joint meetings") should be strictly distinguished. While engagement and communication between standards organizations and consortia are encouraged, care must be taken to explicitly determine the level of engagement and implications.
- coordination: liaison exchange and communiation notifying each other of projects, scope and specifications relevant to and/or utilizing the published work of the other. Note: all work is done in each respective organization according to that organization's processes, procedures and policies (e.g., decision making, IPR policy, etc.) and communicated in a timely manner to the other organization(s).
- cooperation: coordination, plus - mutual consideration, planning, and/or release of mutually relevant or related specifications or activities. e.g., concurrently timed development and publication of protocol specifications from one organization and solutions leveraging said protocols from another organization. Note: all work is done in each respective organization according to that organization's processes, procedures and policies (e.g., decision making, IPR policy, etc.) and communicated in a timely manner to the other organization(s).
- collaboration (including "joint" meetings and work): cooperation, plus - development of deliverables, meetings and/or activities, by two or more organizations which have agreed apriori on the procedures, policies, facilities and meeting operation. These agreements may be independent, different and outside of each organization's established processes. (e.g., ITU-T A.23) Development, operations and output is subject to the mutually agreed processes, procedures, policies, facilities and meetings specifically established apriori to the collaborative or "joint" activity and work. The implication is that there is a significant and non-trivial amount of overhead and preparation needed for truly joint or collaborative work e.g., of usual concern are the membership and the IPR policies under which the joint or collaborative work and activies are undertaken and approval / agreement to the policies by all participating in the joint/collaborative work or activities. Use of true collaboration and joint work or meetings between multiple organizations is usually rare and well justified with specific objectives. There should be explicit and deliberate rationale for joint/collaborative work and explicit reasons why the work can't be done in each of the organizations independently (according to the policies, procedures and process of that organization) and communicated or distributed to the others.
Ideas to convey: two or more organizations that are going to do something together need to decide on their terms and rules and engagement. The rules and policies used may be those from one of the organizations, or not so long as the rules are mutually agreed.
joint work is required to go through whatever processes the organizations involved in the joint work have agreed upon. This may be every organization's processes, some organization's processes, one organization's process or an independently created set of processes mutually agreed upon by all organizations involved.
*The content of this page was last updated on 2025-04-24.