Network Working Group J. Klensin
Internet-Draft S. Dawkins
Expires: October 12, 2004 April 13, 2004
A model for IETF Process Experiments
draft-klensin-process-july14-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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 October 12, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
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 same mechanism as is used for protocol specification.
The first mechanism has often proven to be too lightweight, the
second too heavyweight. There is a middle ground.
This document proposes 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
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
rather than the ones that have been attempted previously.
Table of Contents
1. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
1. Proposal
Since the 1992 changes documented in RFC 1396, 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 them by RFC 2026. 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 RFC 2026 protocol standards
development process (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 RFCs 3667-3668 are the first
documented changes to RFC 2026 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 proposes to regularize and formalize the
mechanism listed first above as a means of moving forward with
procedural changes that might prove valuable.
The mechanisms outlined here are not intended to be exclusive: they
add to the IESG's range of tools for dealing with process issues on
an ongoing basis, rather that replacing those tools with a single
"magic bullet". The choice as to whether to use the procedure
outlined in this document (if it is adopted) 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 that discretion
wisely, this document provides no additional remedies.
Some have read the current procedures as giving the IESG all of the
capabilities outlined here, i.e., this document changes almost
nothing. If this is 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 what it is doing
and what decisions it is making.
We propose to permit (and encourage) the IESG to adopt and institute
"process experiments" using the following procedure:
1. An I-D is written that describes what the proposed new or altered
procedure is about and how it works. A statement of what problem
it is expected to solve would be desirable, but is not a
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
requirement (the intent is to keep the firm requirements for such
an experiment as lightweight as possible). Similarly, specific
experimental or evaluation criteria are very desirable, but 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 that
determination and to avoid denial of service attacks from large
numbers of spurious or unimportant proposals. In particular,
they might institute a procedure requiring some number of
endorsements, or endorsements of a particular type, before the
IESG considers the draft. 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 proposal.
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 that 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 agnostic 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 making of the decisions to go forward (or
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
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 a requirement that any given
process experiment be attempted IETF-wide. A proposal for such an
experiment may specify selected areas, selected working groups,
working groups meeting some specific criteria (such as those created
after a particular time or more than a specified number of years
old), 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 procedural
exceptions it has made) over the last decade are legitimate, then the
IESG has the authority to institute the changes proposed here by
bootstrapping the proposed process.
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
2. 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.
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
3. 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
7 February 2004.
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
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
Appendix A. References
[RFC1396]: "The Process for Organization of Internet Standards", RFC
1396, S. Crocker and POISED Working Group, 1993
[RFC2026]: "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026
(also BCP 9), S. Bradner (editor), 1996
[RFC3667]: "IETF Rights in Contributions", RFC 3667 (also BCP 78), S.
Bradner (editor), 2004
[RFC3668]: "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", RFC
3668 (also BCP 79), S. Bradner (editor), 2004
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Process Experiments April 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Klensin & Dawkins Expires October 12, 2004 [Page 9]
