Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: July 7, 2003 January 6, 2003
An IESG charter
draft-iesg-charter-01
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo gives a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG), a management function of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF).
It is meant to document the charter of the IESG as presently
understood (Jan 2003).
Discussion of this memo is encouraged on the POISED mailing list
<poised@lists.tislab.com>
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
1. Introduction
1.1 The role of the IESG
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the operational and
technical management function of the Internet Engineeering Task Force
(IETF).
It is tasked with making the management decisions about working
groups in the IETF, and with the final review and approval of
documents published as IETF standards-track documents.
1.2 Historic note
The role of the IESG in the IETF management structure has been
largely constant since 1992, when the structure of the Internet
standards process was defined by RFC 1310 (which was later updated by
RFC 1602, RFC 1871 and RFC 2026).
Some of the functions were also defined in RFC 1603 (which was later
updated by RFC 2418).
As the community has grown, and the IESG has gathered experience, the
way in which the IESG approaches its tasks has varied considerably,
but the tasks have remained relatively constant.
This document describes the tasks assigned to the IESG. It does not
attempt to describe the procedures the IESG uses to accomplish these
tasks; that is done in other memos.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
2. The composition of the IESG
The IESG has the following members:
o The IETF Chair, who is also the General AD
o The Area Directors for the IETF Areas
o The IAB Chair and the IETF Executive Director, as ex-officio
members of the IESG.
o Liaisons
The Chair and the Area Directors are selected by the IETF NomCom
according to the procedures of RFC 2282 (Nomcom procedures).
The RFC Editor
The IANA
The IAB
In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the
mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to
serve as a support function.
Decisions of the IESG are made by the IETF Chair and the Area
Directors.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
3. The IESG role in working group management
3.1 Working group creation
The formation of working groups is described in RFC 2418 section 2.
The normal case is that a working group is requested by members of
the IETF community.
Each area director is responsible for ensuring that a working group
being chartered is relevant, has achievable goals and constitutes an
acceptable risk, has sufficient interest and so on. The charter is
the result of a negotiation between the AD and the prospective
chairs, with review by the IAB and approval by the IESG. Normally,
there will be communication with the community of interest for the
working group too.
The AD is also responsible for selecting chairs for the working group
that he thinks will be up to the task.
All charters for proposed working groups are announced to the
community at large before the IESG makes a decision.
The BOF procedure described in RFC 2418 section 2.4 also requires
approval from the relevant AD. A BOF is not required to start a
working group, and a BOF may be held without the purpose being to
create a working group. BOFs are also often discussed with the IESG
and IAB.
If an AD determines that it is needed, the AD can initiate the
formation of a working group.
3.2 Working group management
The role of the Area Director in WG management is described in RFC
2418 section 6.7. The AD is responsible for making sure the working
groups stay focused on the charter tasks, make forward progress, are
coordinated with the rest of the area, and (with the IESG)
coordinated with the rest of the IETF.
In a well functioning working group, main responsibility for these
things rests with the chairs; the AD will normally be able to
concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work.
When a WG finds that it is essential that work gets done which is not
on its charter, the AD, consulting with the rest of the IESG as
required, is responsible for figuring out whether to add it to their
charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone outside the
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG.
The Area Director is also responsible for picking and, when
necessary, replacing working group chairs. This is usually done in
consultation with the IESG.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
4. The IESG role in document review
4.1 Working group documents
This role is described in RFC 2418 section 7.5, and RFC 2026 section
6. The IESG role is one of review and approval.
4.2 Non-working group documents
4.2.1 Standards-track
This role is described in RFC 2026 section 6. Such documents are
submitted to the IESG, which will assign them to a relevant area
director. The IESG is responsible for determining:
o Whether or not the specification is appropriate for standards
track
o Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more
existing WGs
o Whether or not the quality of the specification is adequate
The IESG may recommend that a document submitted for standards-track
publication instead be published as Experimental or Informational.
4.2.2 Informational and Experimental
These documents are usually submitted to the RFC Editor in accordance
with the procedures of RFC 2026 section 4.2.3 and RFC 2418 section 8.
The IESG is asked to review all documents submitted in this fashion
for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the
IETF community; this is a modification of the RFC 2026 procedure, and
documented in RFC 2418 section 8.
The IESG may recommend that the document be reviewed by a working
group, that the document be published with an IESG note indicating
issues such as conflict with the IETF standards process, or may
recommend that the document not be published.
4.3 IESG review procedures
The IESG review procedure is defined by the IESG.
The IESG has web pages as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org);
current details of procedures should be published there.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
5. The IESG role in area management
The IETF divides its work into a number of areas, each comprising
working groups that relate to that area's focus. (RFC 2418 section
1). The area structure is defined by the IESG, and may be changed by
the IESG. The IESG decides which areas groups belong to. When
reassigning areas, the IESG can move responsibility for areas between
IESG members, but the IESG can only add new members through the
nomcom process.
The primary task of area management is done by one or two area
directors per area. An area director may be advised by one or more
directorates, which is selected and chaired by the area director (RFC
2418 section 1). Directorates may be specific to an area, specific
to a technology, or chartered in some other fashion.
The ADs for an area are responsible for making sure the WGs in the
area are well coordinated, that there is coverage for the
technologies needed in the area, and that the challenges that are
most important to the Internet in that area are indeed being worked
on.
To that end, they may charter working groups, suggest modifications
to working group charters, encourage people to work on specific work
items within or outside working groups, or even shut down working
groups that are not performing an useful function.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
6. Other IESG roles
6.1 Staff supervision
The IESG is the main body responsible for supporting the IETF Chair
in supervising the work of the IETF Secretariat.
The supervision of the IANA and the RFC Editor is handled by the IAB.
6.2 Process management
The IESG is responsible for making sure the IETF process is
functional in all aspects. This includes taking responsibility for
initiating consideration of updates of the process when required, as
well as addressing obvious miscarriages of process even when it does
not fall into the categories described above.
6.3 External relations
The main responsibility for handling external relations rests with
the IAB, as described in the IAB Charter (RFC 2850). However, when
technical cooperation is required, it is essential that the work be
coordinated with the relevant ADs. This often means that ADs will
function in a liaison role with other organizations, but the same
function may also be done by others when that seems more appropriate.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
7. Procedural issues
While the IESG is generally free to set its own procedures, some
parts of the procedures are properly part of its charter. These are
given here.
7.1 Decision taking
The IESG attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine
consensus. The IESG may make decisions and take action if at least
seven members concur and there are no more than two dissents.
For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the
Area Directors are counted.
(NOTE: This rule is new, and has not been tried. Its inclusion here
is only done to get around the "how do we decide about a challenge to
the rules" problem.)
The IESG may reach decisions by face to face meeting, teleconference,
Internet communication, or any combination of the above.
7.2 Openness and confidentiality
The IESG publishes minutes of all its meetings on the Internet, and
conducts an open meeting at every IETF meeting. It publishes all its
findings as RFCs, Internet Drafts or messages to the IETF-announce
mailing list. However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly
legal and financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept
confidential, and the chair may, with the consent of the full
members, exclude liaison and ex officio members from such
discussions.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
8. Security considerations
The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper
thought to security. Apart from that, there seem to be no
considerations of security relevant to this memo.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
References
[1] Chapin, A., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 1310, March
1992.
[2] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
[3] Huizer, E. and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", RFC 1603, March 1994.
[4] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2,
RFC 1871, November 1995.
[5] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[6] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[7] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
10, RFC 2282, February 1998.
Author's Address
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
Weidemanns vei 27
Trondheim 7043
NO
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft An IESG charter January 2003
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Alvestrand Expires July 7, 2003 [Page 12]
