A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code
draft-farrell-ft-03

Email sent to ietf@ietf.org
====
Hi,

This email terminates (prematurely) the IETF last call on draft-farrell-ft.

It is clear to me that this document will not be advanced for further IESG evaluation without considerable further work and a subsequent IETF last call. There is no point in continuing this IETF last call.

In no way does this email stop you from discussing this document or the ideas it contains on this mailing list.

I have moved the document into "AD Is Watching" state in the data tracker and will work with the author to determine how he wants to process your comments and the document.

Thanks,
Adrian

IANA has reviewed draft-farrell-ft-03, which is currently in Last Call,
and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working
  group document to IESG review.  It is provided as a process
  experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs
  believe that there is running code that implements a working group
  Internet-Draft.  The motivation is to have the IETF process
  explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall
  philosophy of running code and rough consensus.

  In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and
  Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
  Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed
  during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
  within two weeks.

  This experiment will run for one year.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd Write-up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Experimental. This document is a process experiment as described by
RFC 3933 and is, thus, required to be Experimental. Yes it is shown
in the header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working
  group document to IESG review.  It is provided as a process
  experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs
  believe that there is running code that implements a working group
  Internet-Draft.  The motivation is to have the IETF process
  explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall
  philosophy of running code and rough consensus.

  In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and
  Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
  Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed
  during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
  within two weeks.

  This experiment will run for one year.

Working Group Summary

  This is an individual submisssion. It's been discussed on
  ietf@ietf.org a reasonable amount and more is to be
  expected during IETF LC. Early review by several IESG members has
  led to additions and changes to the text.

Document Quality

  There are no issues with document quality. It is of the nature of
  this type of process experiment that there can be no examples of the
  process being executed until after the I-D is published as an RFC.

Personnel

  Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the AD and shepherd.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  I did a detailed review before agreeing to be the shepherd, and the
  document has been updated accordingly. I think the current version
  is ready to advance to the next stage of review and discussion.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No concerns, however I anticipate that IETF last call and IESG
  review will result in further discussion that may result in
  additional changes to the document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  Yes. The document proposes to assign actions to the IETF Secretariat
  so I will bring it to the attention of the Executive Director during
  IETF last call.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really                   
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  I believe in the value of conducting this experiment although it is
  my personal opinion that it will not generate results that cause a
  change to IETF processes. This opinion is, of itself, not a reason to
  not carry out the experiment.

  I have personal concerns about the actions required of the
  Secretariat during this experiment. I have raised and discussed
  these with the document author, and we have agreed to disagree. I
  will, however, raise this concern during IETF last call and ensure
  that the Secretariat has the oportunity to comment on feasibility.

  An additional concern has been raised in discussion and I anticipate
  it will resurface during IETF last call. It concerns the main
  process-change in the experiment viz. limiting IETF last call
  comments that must be addressed to those that meet the IESG's
  Discuss criteria. The concern being raised is that this will lead
  to a lower level of review and so inferior documents. It is my
  opinion that it is exactly the purpose of the experiment to test
  out this approach, but I expect loud voices during IETF last call.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes a confirmation has been received rom the author.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  The document has been discussed on the IETF list and by the IESG
  with a mixed reception. I would not say that there is strong
  support, but also that the majority of objections have been
  overcome.

  The document is easy to understand, and there is general support
  and good will for acitons that encourage the presence of running
  code.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No such threats have been received. Initial discontent in the IESG
  has been moilified by recent revisions to the document.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes idnits cleanly.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  It is a requirement of RFC 3933 experiments that the IESG considers
  the proposal is plausible and plausibly useful before IETF last
  call is started. This question was put to the IESG in a management
  item on the 10/01/2013 telechat and they had no objections to
  moving forward to IETF last call.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No such normative references.
 
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No such normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  There are no IANA actions required or requested by this document.
  A suitable "null" IANA considerations section is included.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There are no IANA actions required or requested by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No such reviews or checks are appropriate.