Entities Involved in the IETF Standards Process
draft-rsalz-2028bis-07
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(1) "Internet Engineering Task Force" should replace the "???" in the header (rfc7841). (2) The reference to rfc2028 is not used anywhere. If used, it should be Informative because rfc2028 is being declared Obsolete. (3) There is some inconsistency in how the references are treated. Keep in mind that the reference type doesn't depend on the document's status but the kind of information relative to the current draft. https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ (3a) The reference to the IAB Charter is listed as Normative while the reference to the IESG Charter is Informative -- the text leading to them is similar and used to point to additional information: §3.3: Other matters concerning its organization and operation are described in the IESG charter [IESG]. §3.4: Other matters concerning the IAB's organization and operation are described in the IAB charter [IAB]. In this case, both references should be treated the same. IMO, both can be Informative. (3b) §3.7: "Details of the organization and operation of the IRTF, the ISRG, and its RGs may be found in [IRTF], [IABIRTF], [IRTFPRIMER], and [IRTFCHAIR]." This case is similar to the one above: the references point to additional information. IRTF is listed as Normative and the others as Informative. All can be Informative. (3c) §3.8: "The principles for the copyright licenses are described in [IPRRIGHTS1] and [COPYRIGHT]..." IPRRIGHTS1 and IPRRIGHTS2 are both listed as Normative, while COPYRIGHT is Informative. All 3 can be Informative. (3d) Other similar references used to point at more information are also listed as Normative and should be Informative -- for example, IANADOCS, MEETINGS, NOMCOM, and RFCEDMODEL.
Erik Kline No Objection
* Thank you to Ted Lemon for the IoT-DIR review.
Francesca Palombini No Objection
Thank you for this needed update to 2028, Rich. Francesca
John Scudder (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for the discussion, I'm clearing in anticipation of the discussed changes. Here's the old discuss point for posterity. Thanks for your work on this document. I'd like to discuss what it says about ISOC's role. In §3.11 regarding ISOC, we have Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet Society (ISOC), with the Board of Trustees being responsible for ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process [ISOCIETF]. Looking at ISOCIETF, I don’t see this in plain language anywhere. The strings “rules” and “ratify” don’t appear, and “procedure” doesn’t appear anywhere relevant. The primary relevant section is §4, “ISOC's Role in the IETF Standards Process”, which lists several specifics in the first paragraph: ISOC plays a small role in the IETF standards process. In particular, ISOC assists the standards process by appointing the IETF NomCom chair and by confirming IAB candidates who are put forward by the IETF NomCom, as described in [RFC8713], and by acting as the last resort in the appeals process, as described in [RFC2026]. There are also indirect things mentioned later (liaisons, indirect support programs). But none of these things seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.” We also have, in §6 of ISOCIETF, some words about the IETF Trust, ending in One of the IETF Trust's trustees is appointed by the ISOC's Board of Trustees. This, again, doesn’t seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.” COMMENT: I have one additional comment, and a few nits. Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating model accurately, if I understand correctly (and I may not!) there’s some bleedover between at least CFRG and standards-making, such that the IETF relies on CFRG for (mumble magic crypto smoke mumble), and so the relationship isn't as cut-and-dried as the section makes it sound. Is this text intended to capture that nuance? Similarly, IETF working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input. Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF than other community input, and go through the same standards setting process as any other proposal. My understanding of the CFRG relationship, though, is that it does carry more weight? Nits: 1. “Key Individuals Roles” —> “Key Individuals’ Roles” 2. Most Working Groups (WGs) focus their efforts on one or more documents that capture its work results. "its work results" --> “Their work results” 3. This includes the IETF trademarks, or copyright licenses “Or” should be “and”
Martin Duke (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS in the editor's copy. (2.3) As AD-sponsored documents are in the IETF stream, it would be good to note that this mechanism exists and that it bypasses the Working Group role in the process.
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
Robert Wilton No Objection
Thanks for this document. There are some other bodies that folks working in IETF standardization might be involved in that I was surprised are not mentioned. The main one that I thought might be worth mentioning are the directorates, since someone new to IETF is likely to get directorate reviews. Separately, I was wondering whether there should be any mention of EMODIR, or the Ombudsteam? Regards, Rob
Roman Danyliw No Objection
** Section 2.2. Emphasize the role of chair is a facilitator: OLD Each Working Group is headed by a Chair who has the responsibility for directing the group's activities NEW Each Working Group is managed by a Chair who has the responsibility for facilitating the group's activities ** Section 2.2. Typo. s/responsibilites/responsibilities/ ** Section 2.3. Editorial symmetry with prior section and expand the roles of the AD. OLD The Area Director (AD) assigned as the Reponsible Area Director for a Working Group will review documents after the Working Group has approved them following a last call. NEW Each Working Group is assigned a responsible Area Director (AD). The AD can assist the WG chair in assessing consensus and executing process. The AD will also review documents after the WG has conducted a WG last call and requested publication; and will bring these documents to the IESG for approval. ** Section 3. Should directorates and their associate reviews be defined? ** Section 3.2. Append the following text to the first paragraph to recognize that there are different types of WGs: OLD Working Groups typically have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of specific tasks as defined in their charter and milestones. NEW Working Groups typically have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of specific tasks as defined in their charter and milestones. Some Working Groups are long-lived intended to conduct ongoing maintenance on IETF protocol(s). There are also (dispatch) Working Groups whose role is to assess where new work in the IETF should be done, and they do not directly produce standards. ** Section 3.3 OLD The IESG is responsible for the actions associated with the progression of documents along the "standards track", including the initial approval of new Working Groups and the final approval of documents. NEW The IESG is responsible for the actions associated with the progression of documents in the “IETF stream”, including the initial approval of new Working Groups, any subsequent rechartering, and the final approval of documents. ** Section 3.7 OLD ... shorter-term issues of engineering and standards making. NEW … shorter-term issues of engineering, operations, and specification of standards. ** Section 3.7. RGs also sometimes develop experimental protocols or technologies, some of which may be suitable for possible standardization in IETF. No issues with the above. Should we account for the definition or maturation of (cryptographic) algorithms? ** Section 3.7 Similarly, IETF working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input. Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF than other community input, and go through the same standards setting process as any other proposal. I agree with John on acknowledging that the IRTF also provides specialized expertise to the IETF which it couldn’t get internally (e.g., Crypto Panel). We have collectively operated that this specialized review does have special standing because it’s not expertise in the IETF community. Also, certain IRTF work (e.g., crypto documents from the CFRG) are also often given special standing because of the uncommon way they were developed (through an open, peer reviewed process).
Warren Kumari (was Discuss) No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Objection
Thanks for working on this document.
I agree with most of the comments from my AD colleagues. Followings are my comments which was not covered by others -
* Section 2.1 : should it not something about the contributors? there is a way to explicitly mention contributors separately than authors or editors. Sometimes the document author list is long, hence we list them in the contributor section. This seems in some cases creates significant distinction between authors, editors and contributors.
* Section 3.2 : working groups also uses interim meetings in between the IETF meetings. Specially during the pandemic time this interim meetings have used in a good way to keep the working group work progressing. This meeting option would be good to mention here.
* Section 3.3 : had a similar observation about the document along the "Standard Track" like Martin Duke. I am happy with the resolution reached in his discuss.
* Section 3.11: I have seen some discussion around ISOC description here and was now sure what was the resolution. Here is my text proposal for this section-
Internet Society (ISOC) has the mission for advancing the development and application of the Internet infrastructure, technologies and open standards. ISOC helps the IETF standard process by appointing the NomCom Chair, confirming IAB candidates selected by the NomCom, and acting as the final authority in the appeals process. ISOC also supports IETF through variety of programs, and provides a corporate home for the IETF LLC, the administrative entity thats support the IETF, the IAB and the IRTF [ISOCIETF].
ISOC operates with a Board of Trustees. The way in which the members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees are selected, and other matters concerning the operation of the Internet Society, are described in [ISOC].
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 2.1 When a document is composed and edited mainly by an individual, they may be referred to as the Document Author. The distinction is not significant. This document uses the term Document Editor. I'd consider "not significant for the standards process", as I believe that many people do ascribe some significance to the distinction. Section 2.3 The Area Director (AD) assigned as the Reponsible Area Director for a Working Group will review documents after the Working Group has approved them following a last call. When satisfied, the AD will schedule an IETF last call (when needed) and will coordinate the IESG review and approval of the document. Per 8789, isn't "when needed" now "always"? Section 3.2 Working Groups ideally display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity; IETF participants recognize that the greatest benefit for all members of the Internet community results from cooperative development of technically superior protocols and services. I like the directorate reviewer's suggestion of "technically excellent". Section 3.4 Looking at the diff from RFC 2028, it seems that we lost some text about reviewing and approving WG charters. I believe the current state is that the IAB reviews charters and provides advice to the IESG, with the final approval being a matter for the IESG. So I think it would be worthwhile to say that it reviews WG charters that are proposed for the IETF. Section 3.5 members. The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a position funded by the IETF LLC, with responsibilities to consult with all parties, and be a member of the advisory board. Maybe s/advisory board/RSAB/ since we just defined the latter term in the previous sentence? Section 3.6 IANA also is responsible for operating and maintaining several aspects of the DNS (https://www.iana.org/domains) and coordinating of IP address assignments (https://www.iana.org/numbers). Looking at the diff from RFC 2028, this seems to have lost some of the flavor that IANA manages the DNS root zone, and is the primary authority for IP address allocation (in a hierarchical system involving other entities). Section 3.7 The IRTF consists of a number of Research Groups (RGs) chartered to research various aspects related to the broader Internet. The products these RGs are typically research results that are often (nit) "products of" Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF than other community input, and go through the same standards setting process as any other proposal. I agree with John that the "no more weight" statement does not reflect all situations in practice. Section 3.11 Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet Society (ISOC), with the Board of Trustees being responsible for ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process [ISOCIETF]. Looking at [ISOCIETF], I'm not sure what the justification is intended to be for saying that Internet standardization as a whole is an "organized activity of" ISOC. [ISOCIETF] itself says that ISOC "plays a small role", which seems incompatible with a claim that the whole overall activity is performed under its aegis. The IETF LLC is, after all, a disregarded entity of ISOC, which as I understand things, gives it substantial independence. Section 7.2 [TRUSTEES] Arkko, J., "IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust", RFC 8715, DOI 10.17487/RFC8715, February I'm not sure if it's better to reference 8174 or 8175 where we use [TRUSTEES]. Maybe both is safer?