IAB and IESG Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring
RFC 4089

Document Type RFC - Informational (May 2005; No errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream IAB
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream IAB state (None)
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 4089 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD Brian Carpenter
Send notices to leslie@thinkingcat.com
Network Working Group                                 S. Hollenbeck, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4089                                  IAB and IESG
Category: Informational                                         May 2005

   IAB and IESG Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes a joint recommendation of the Internet
   Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group for
   administrative restructuring of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
   The IETF Chair declared that the IETF had consensus to follow this
   recommendation on November 11, 2004.  Further work has been done to
   revise and refine the structures proposed.  The recommendation is
   being published for the record.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  The Process That Produced This Recommendation  . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Arguments That Had Particular Weight in the Discussions  . . .  4
       4.1.  Focusing on Scenarios C and O  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       4.2.  Why We Chose Scenario O  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   Appendix: Scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   Appendix: Scenario O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Hollenbeck                   Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 4089                 IAB-IESG AdminRest Rec                 May 2005

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has a need for
   administrative support functions.  The debate and dialogue of 2003
   and 2004 has led to the belief that the way these functions are
   provided needs to be changed.

   This document gives the recommendation of the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG) and Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on what
   the next step in that change process should be, and some of the
   background and reasoning behind this recommendation.

2.  The Process That Produced This Recommendation

   During several months in 2004, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) worked together to
   consider several different options for restructuring the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) administrative functions.  The goal of
   this effort was to produce a recommendation for consideration by and
   approval of the IETF community.  The rationale for this effort is
   described in RFC 3716 [1].  Much background work and several detailed
   proposals for community consideration are provided in a report
   prepared by a consultant titled "IETF Administrative Support
   Functions" [2].

   The consultant's report included several possible scenarios for
   administrative restructuring (named scenario A, B, C, and D).  As
   discussion took place within the IETF community, it became clear that
   some of the scenarios had features that appeared more promising than
   others, but that we did not have enough of a concrete proposal to
   crystallize opinions into a consensus for action.  Members of the
   IESG and IAB took on the task of working out more complete
   descriptions of two of the scenarios.  They were:

   o  Scenario C (section 4.4 of the report) describes when
      "administrative support functions for the IETF are legally housed
      in a focused, incorporated institution" with close ties to the
      Internet Society (ISOC).  Scenario C is included here as the first
      appendix.

   o  A new scenario, called Scenario O, that includes features derived
      from scenarios A and B (sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the report),
      focusing on the formalization of the ISOC/IETF relationship while
      housing administrative support functions for the IETF within ISOC.
      Scenario O is included here as the second appendix.

Hollenbeck                   Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 4089                 IAB-IESG AdminRest Rec                 May 2005

   These descriptions were not intended to close off discussion of other
   scenarios, but to focus discussion on what appeared to be two
   independent loci of support.
Show full document text