An Update on Milestones
draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones-01

Network Working Group                                        D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft                                                Google LLC
Updates: 2418 (if approved)                                26 April 2024
Intended status: Best Current Practice                                  
Expires: 28 October 2024

                        An Update on Milestones
                 draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones-01

Abstract

   As mandated in RFC 2418, working group charters currently contain
   milestones.  However, these milestones are often sufficiently out of
   date that they no longer provide value.  This document exists to
   facilitate a community discussion around the future of milestones.
   This document could potentially update RFC 2418.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://davidschinazi.github.io/draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones/
   draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones.html.  Status information for
   this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
   schinazi-update-on-milestones/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 October 2024.

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           An Update on Milestones              April 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Current Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Potential Path Forwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Do Nothing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Ensure Chairs Update Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Improve Tooling to Automate Milestones  . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.4.  Formalize Dateless Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.5.  Make Milestones Optional  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.6.  Remove Milestones Entirely  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.7.  Rewrite RFC 2418  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   As mandated in Section 2.2 of [RFC2418], a working group charter
   "enumerates a set of milestones together with time frames for their
   completion".  That document also leans heavily on milestones as a
   process mechanism that dictates how a working group spends its time
   and conducts its business.  However, more than 15 years after the
   publication of that document, the reality is often different.
   Milestones are now commonly ignored, and often insufficiently updated
   to the point of irrelevance.  Since 2020, it has been possible for
   some working groups to use dateless milestones (see [DATELESS]).

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           An Update on Milestones              April 2024

   Since current usage has diverged significantly from the requirements
   mandated by [RFC2418], it seems valuable that we update that document
   to the current community consensus, assuming such consensus exists.
   This document currently describes possible options as a way to
   facilitate this community discussion, and if such a consensus were to
   emerge, this document would then update [RFC2418].

1.1.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Current Text

   At the time of writing this document, the current normative language
   around milestones is in Section 2.2 of [RFC2418]:

      The working group charter MUST establish a timetable for specific
      work items.  While this may be renegotiated over time, the list of
      milestones and dates facilitates the Area Director's tracking of
      working group progress and status, and it is indispensable to
      potential participants identifying the critical moments for input.
      Milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified as
      showing specific achievement; e.g., "Internet-Draft finished" is
      fine, but "discuss via email" is not.  It is helpful to specify
      milestones for every 3-6 months, so that progress can be gauged
      easily.  This milestone list is expected to be updated
      periodically (see Section 5 of [RFC2418]).

3.  Issues

   Milestones were designed as a tool to share information from the
   corresponding working group to various interested parties.  When
   milestones are years out of date, they can no longer serve that
   purpose.  They can also cause harm if someone interprets them as
   being timely when they are in fact out of date.

4.  Potential Path Forwards

   The list of potential paths forward below is meant as a mostly
   exchaustive list of options that the author was aware of at the time
   of writing.  If you think of one that isn't listed, please notify the
   author so it can be added.

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           An Update on Milestones              April 2024

4.1.  Do Nothing

   As is often the case, the simplest path forward is to do nothing at
   all.  It has the advantage of requiring the least work, but the
   obvious downside of not addressing the issues described in Section 3.

4.2.  Ensure Chairs Update Milestones

   One potential solution to the issue of out of date milestones is,
   unsurprisingly, to update the milestones often enough.  This solution
   has the advantage of not requiring community consensus to update RFC
   2418.  Since working chairs serve at the discretion of the Area
   Director, it is absolutely within the area directors' mandate to
   request that chairs update milestones.  However, since chairs are a
   volunteer unpaid position, they might not always have the time to
   fulfill all the tasks requested by their responsible area director.
   The benefits of up-to-date milestones would need to demonstrated in
   order to motivate their use.

4.3.  Improve Tooling to Automate Milestones

   The overwhelming majority of milestones currently on the datatracker
   are specific to a given draft.  The datatracker even includes tooling
   that allows attaching a draft to a milestone as an "associated
   document".  This tooling could be enhanced to automatically update
   the milestone based on the status of the corresponding document.
   However, this raises the question: if the relevant information is
   already available in the datatracker, what is the purpose of
   duplicating it in a milestone?

4.4.  Formalize Dateless Milestones

   The current datatracker tooling that allows dateless milestones
   appears to be in violation of the RFC 2418 text quoted above.  While
   this is not a critical issue in and of itself, it helps motivate
   updating RFC 2418.  We could update RFC 2418 to reflect the reality
   of our current process.

4.5.  Make Milestones Optional

   Another potential update to RFC 2418 would be to make milestones
   optional.  Since some area directors find milestones helpful and
   others do not, we could have the best of both worlds by formally
   making milestones optional: they would then be enabled or disabled
   for each working group on a case-by-case basis.  The responsible area
   director would decide whether to enable milestones or not, though
   they should involve the working group chairs in that decision as
   milestones can only be successful is chairs update them.

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           An Update on Milestones              April 2024

   Making milestones optional allows removing them from working groups
   that would otherwise perpetually have out-of-date milestones, while
   retaining them when the chairs do keep them up-to-date.

4.6.  Remove Milestones Entirely

   Another more drastic option would be to remove milestones entirely
   from the datatracker, and update RFC 2418 to no longer mention them.

4.7.  Rewrite RFC 2418

   During the 15 years that have gone by since RFC 2418 was published,
   many aspects of the IETF process have changed.  At this point, some
   portions of RFC 2418 now feel anachronistic.  As a random example,
   working group minutes are theoretically required to be encoded in
   ASCII, and that almost never happens any more in order to allow using
   the names of working group members that require different character
   sets.  Similarly, RFC 2418 still requires chairs to circulate an
   attendance list (also known as the "blue sheets"), a task that has
   now been automated.

   While such small points do help motivate updating RFC 2418, it is
   unclear if much larger changes would be beneficial.

5.  Conclusion

   Based on the above, the author currently believes that the best path
   forward would be to update RFC 2418 to both make milestones optional,
   and codify the availability of dateless milestones.  Making such a
   change would require IETF consensus.

6.  Security Considerations

   Readers of the datatracker REALLY SHOULD NOT make important decisions
   based solely on the status of working group milestones as those could
   be out of date.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           An Update on Milestones              April 2024

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
              September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [DATELESS] "wg-chairs list discussion: Milestones and dates",
              <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/
              GKTCAy5As7czqteM-MlhqIvL2Ig/>.

Acknowledgments

   Some of the contents of this document were inspired by a presentation
   given by Adam Roach at the WG Chairs’ Forum at IETF 103 in November
   2018.

Author's Address

   David Schinazi
   Google LLC
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   United States of America
   Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com

Schinazi                 Expires 28 October 2024                [Page 6]