| Rfc | 3933 |
|---|
| Title | A Model for IETF Process Experiments |
|---|
| Author | J. Klensin, S. Dawkins |
|---|
| Date | November 2004 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Also | BCP0093 |
|---|
| Status: | BEST
CURRENT PRACTICE |
|---|
|
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 3933 S. Dawkins
BCP: 93 November 2004
Category: Best Current Practice
A Model for IETF Process Experiments
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
The IETF has designed process changes over the last ten years in one
of two ways: announcement by the IESG, sometimes based on informal
agreements with limited community involvement and awareness, and
formal use of the same mechanism used for protocol specification.
The first mechanism has often proven to be too lightweight, the
second too heavyweight.
This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of
making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose
and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then
establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model
rather than those previously attempted.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background and Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of
making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose
and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then
establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model
rather than those previously attempted.
2. Background and Specification
Since the 1992 changes documented in [RFC1396], the IETF has used two
mechanisms for process changes.
1. IESG has adopted a number of procedural changes on its own
initiative and documented them informally, utilizing the wide
discretion implicitly granted to them by [RFC2026]. This provided
a lightweight mechanism for change, but the lightness came with a
cost: There was sometimes too little alignment with the larger
IETF community.
2. The IETF has also used the [RFC2026] protocol standards
development process to identify a community of interest, hold one
or more BoFs, charter a working group, discuss proposed changes
within the community, develop IETF-wide consensus on the changes,
and publish (usually) Best Current Practice specifications. This
provided full community involvement but also came with a cost in
flexibility. The IETF does not change its formal processes often
(the IPR clarifications in [RFC3667, RFC3668] are the first
documented changes to [RFC2026] since 1996), and the community is
understandably reluctant to permanently alter or extend formally
adopted processes with untried new procedures.
There is a middle ground between BCP process updates and informal
agreements. This document specifies regularizing and formalizing the
informal IESG mechanisms listed in 1 above as a means of moving
forward with procedural changes that might prove valuable.
The mechanisms outlined here add to the IESG's range of tools for
dealing with process issues on an ongoing basis. They supplement the
existing tools rather than attempting to replace them with a single
"magic bullet". The choice of using the procedure outlined in this
document or other mechanisms available to the IESG and the community
-- present or future -- remains in the IESG's hands. If the IESG
does not exercise this discretion wisely, this document provides no
additional remedies.
Some have interpreted the current procedures as giving the IESG all
of the capabilities outlined here. If this were true, this document
only encourages the IESG to use this type of mechanism more
frequently in preference to less streamlined ones, and to more
explicitly document its actions and decisions.
This specification permits and encourages the IESG to adopt and
institute "process experiments" by using the following procedure:
1. An I-D is written describing the proposed new or altered
procedure. A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
desirable but not required (the intent is to keep the firm
requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as possible).
Similarly, specific experimental or evaluative criteria, although
highly desirable, are not required -- for some of the process
changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the
end of the sunset period that the community generally believes
things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
sufficient. The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout
typically, not to exceed one year after adoption.
2. If the IESG believes the proposal is plausible and plausibly
useful, a four-week IETF Last Call is initiated. The IESG can
institute whatever procedures it wishes to make this determination
and to avoid denial of service attacks from large numbers of
spurious or unimportant proposals. In particular, they might
institute a procedure requiring a number of endorsements, or
endorsements of a particular type, before the IESG considers the
proposal. The IESG is, however, expected to understand that
procedures or review processes that act as a mechanism for
significant delays do not fall within the intent of this
specification.
3. At the conclusion of the Last Call, the IESG reevaluates the
plausibility and appropriateness of the proposal. If they
conclude that the proposed experiment is appropriate, a second I-D
is generated (either by the IESG or by the original authors with
IESG advice) that cleans up any definitional issues exposed in the
Last Call and that explicitly identifies and responds to issues
raised during the Last Call.
4. The document and experiment are then announced, the experiment is
begun, and the document is forwarded for publication as an
Experimental RFC.
The IESG is explicitly authorized to use this mechanism (based on
Experimental RFCs) to gain experience with proposed changes to BCP
specifications. There is no requirement to approve a BCP
specification for the experiment until the experiment is found to
have value.
The IESG could, of course, reach a "bad idea" conclusion at any stage
in this process and abandon the experiment. It might recommend
publication of the experimental document, with a discussion of why it
was a bad idea, but is not required to do so. The list above is
deliberately vague about where the I-Ds come from: a WG, design team,
individual contribution, editing group, or other mechanism could be
used in the first and/or third steps, but no specific mechanisms are
required, and the IESG is explicitly permitted to generate such
proposals internally.
In each case, the IESG's decision to go forward (or not) with a
procedural experiment, or the steps leading up to one, is expected to
reflect their judgment of the existence of rough consensus in the
community. That judgment may be appealed using the usual procedures,
but the IESG and the community are reminded that an experimental
attempt to try something for a fixed period is typically a better
engineering approach than extended philosophical discussion without
any experience to back it up.
Nothing above is to be construed as requiring an IETF-wide attempt
for any given process experiment. A proposal for such an experiment
may specify selected areas, selected working groups, working groups
meeting some specific criteria (e.g., those created after a
particular time or of a specified age), or be specific in other ways.
At or before the end of the "sunset" timeout, the IESG would either
revise (or cause to be revised) the document into a BCP RFC or the
procedure would expire and, presumably, not be tried again unless
something changed radically. A document describing why the
experiment had succeeded or failed would be desirable but could not,
realistically, be a requirement. If the procedure went to BCP, the
BCP would reflect what we would call "operational experience" in the
real world.
We note that, if the procedures the IESG has adopted (and the
procedural exceptions it has made) over the last decade are
legitimate, then the IESG has the authority to institute the changes
specified here by bootstrapping this process.
3. Security Considerations
This document specifies a mechanism for evolving IETF procedures. It
does not raise or consider any protocol-specific security issues. In
considering experimental changes to procedures, the IESG should, of
course, exercise due caution that such changes not reduce the quality
of security review and consideration for protocols or, at least, that
the process experiment proposals contain early detection and
correction mechanisms should quality deterioration occur.
4. Acknowledgements
The first revision of this document benefited significantly from
suggestions and comments from Avri Doria, Margaret Wasserman, and
Harald Alvestrand, and from discussions with the General Area
Directorate and at its open meeting during IETF 59. After mailing
list discussion, considerable explanatory material was removed to a
separate document for the current version.
The first version of this document was posted as an Internet Draft on
February 7, 2004.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC1396] Crocker, S., "The Process for Organization of Internet
Standards Working Group (POISED)", RFC 1396, January 1993.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
6. Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
EMail: john-ietf@jck.com
Spencer Dawkins
1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
Allen, TX 75002
USA
Phone: +1 469 330 3616
EMail: spencer@mcsr-labs.org
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can
be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.