IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions
RFC 5742
| Document | Type |
RFC - Best Current Practice
(December 2009; No errata)
Obsoletes RFC 3932
Also known as BCP 92
Was draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis (individual in gen area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Russ Housley , Harald Alvestrand | ||
| Last updated | 2019-06-15 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5742 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Alvestrand
Request for Comments: 5742 Google
BCP: 92 R. Housley
Obsoletes: 3932 Vigil Security
Updates: 2026, 3710 December 2009
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions
Abstract
This document describes the procedures used by the IESG for handling
documents submitted for RFC publication from the Independent
Submission and IRTF streams.
This document updates procedures described in RFC 2026 and RFC 3710.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5742.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
1. Introduction and History
RFC 4844 [N1] defines four RFC streams. When a document is submitted
for publication, the review that it receives depends on the stream in
which it will be published. The four streams defined in RFC 4844
are:
- The IETF stream
- The IAB stream
- The IRTF stream
- The Independent Submission stream
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These RFCs, and any
other IETF-generated Informational or Experimental documents, are
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies [N2] and published as part of the
IETF stream.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF stream might not
receive any review by the IETF for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols. Generally, there is no attempt for IETF consensus or IESG
approval. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF
stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose.
IESG processing described in this document is concerned only with the
last two categories, which comprise the Independent Submission stream
and the IRTF stream, respectively [N1].
Following the approval of RFC 2026 [N2] and prior to the publication
of RFC 3932 [I1], the IESG reviewed all Independent Submission stream
documents before publication. This review was often a full-scale
review of technical content, with the Area Directors (ADs) attempting
to clear points with the authors, stimulate revisions of the
documents, encourage the authors to contact appropriate working
groups (WGs), and so on. This was a considerable drain on the
resources of the IESG, and because this was not the highest priority
task of the IESG members, it often resulted in significant delays.
In March 2004, the IESG decided to make a major change in this review
model, with the IESG taking responsibility only for checking for
conflicts between the work of the IETF and the documents submitted.
Soliciting technical review is deemed to be the responsibility of the
RFC Editor. If an individual AD chooses to review the technical
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
content of the document and finds issues, that AD will communicate
these issues to the RFC Editor, and they will be treated the same way
as comments on the documents from other sources.
Prior to 2006, documents from the IRTF were treated as either IAB
submissions or Independent Submissions via the RFC Editor. However,
the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) has established a review
process for the publication of RFCs from the IRTF stream [I2]. Once
these procedures are fully adopted, the IESG will be responsible only
for checking for conflicts between the work of the IETF and the
documents submitted, but results of the check will be reported to the
IRTF. These results may be copied to the RFC Editor as a courtesy.
This document describes only the review process done by the IESG when
the RFC Editor or the IRTF requests that review. The RFC Editor will
request the review of Independent Submission stream documents, and
the IRTF will request review of IRTF stream documents. There are
many other interactions between document editors and the IESG, for
instance, an AD may suggest that an author submit a document as input
for work within the IETF rather than to the RFC Editor as part of the
Independent Submission stream, or the IESG may suggest that a
document submitted to the IETF is better suited for submission to the
RFC Editor as part of Independent Submission stream, but these
interactions are not described in this memo.
For the convenience of the reader, this document includes description
of some actions taken by the RFC Editor, the IAB, and the IRSG. The
inclusion of these actions is not normative. Rather, these actions
are included to describe the overall process surrounding the
normative IESG procedures described in this document. No RFC Editor,
IAB, or IRSG procedures are set by this document.
1.1. Changes since RFC 3932
RFC 3932 provided procedures for the review of Independent Submission
stream submissions. With the definition of procedures by the IRSG
for the IRTF stream, it has become clear that similar procedures
apply to the review by the IESG of IRTF stream documents.
The IAB and the RFC Editor have made updates to the formatting of the
title page for all RFCs [N3]. With these changes, the upper left
hand corner of the title page indicates the stream that produced the
RFC. This label replaces some of the information that was previously
provided in mandatory IESG notes on non-IETF-stream documents.
The IESG may request the inclusion of an IESG note in an Independent
Submission or IRTF stream document to explain the specific
relationship, if any, to IETF work. In case there is a dispute about
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
the content of the IESG note, this document provides a dispute
resolution process.
2. Background Material
The review of Independent Submissions by the IESG was prescribed by
RFC 2026 [N2], Section 4.2.3. The procedure described in this
document is compatible with that description.
The procedures developed by the IRTF for documents created by the
Research Groups also include review by the IESG [I2].
The IESG Charter (RFC 3710 [I5], Section 5.2.2) describes the review
process that was employed in Spring 2003 (even though the RFC was not
published until 2004); with the publication of RFC 3932 [I1], the
procedure described in RFC 3710 was no longer relevant to documents
submitted via the RFC Editor. The publication of this document
further updates Section 5.2.2 of RFC 3710, now covering both the IRTF
and the Independent Submission streams.
3. Detailed Description of IESG Review
The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission stream submissions for
suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3],
the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts
with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community.
Similarly, documents intended for publication as part of the IRTF
stream are sent to the IESG for review for conflicts with the IETF
standards process or work done in the IETF community [I2].
The IESG review of these Independent Submission and IRTF stream
documents results in one of the following five types of conclusion,
any of which may be accompanied by a request to include an IESG note
if the document is published.
1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
document and IETF work.
2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt
the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
document at this time.
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review
and IESG approval.
5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.
The RFC headers and boilerplate [N3] is intended to describe the
relationship of the document to the IETF standards process. In
exceptional cases, when the relationship of the document to the IETF
standards process might be unclear, the IESG may request the
inclusion of an IESG note to clarify the relationship of the document
to the IETF standards process. Such a note is likely to include
pointers to related IETF RFCs. The dispute resolution process in
Section 4 is provided to handle situations in which the IRSG or RFC
Editor is concerned with the content of the requested IESG note.
The last two responses are included respectively, for the case where
a document attempts to take actions (such as registering a new URI
scheme) that require IETF Review, Standards Action, or IESG Approval
(as these terms are defined in RFC 5226 [I6]), and for the case where
there is a proposed change or extension to an IETF protocol that was
not anticipated by the original authors and that may be detrimental
to the normal usage of the protocol, but where the protocol documents
do not explicitly say that this type of extension requires IETF
review.
If a document requires IETF review, the IESG will offer the author
the opportunity to ask for publication as an AD-sponsored individual
document, which is subject to full IETF review, including possible
assignment to a WG or rejection. Redirection to the full IESG review
path is not a guarantee that the IESG will accept the work item, or
even that the IESG will give it any particular priority; it is a
guarantee that the IESG will consider the document.
The IESG will normally complete review within four weeks of
notification by the RFC Editor or IRTF. In the case of a possible
conflict, the IESG may contact a WG or a WG Chair for an outside
opinion of whether publishing the document is harmful to the work of
that WG and, in the case of a possible conflict with an IANA
registration procedure, the IANA expert for that registry.
If the IESG does not find any conflict between an Independent
Submission and IETF work, then the RFC Editor is responsible for
judging the technical merits for that submission, including
considerations of possible harm to the Internet. If the IESG does
not find any conflict between an IRTF submission and IETF work, then
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
the IRSG is responsible for judging the technical merits for that
submission, including considerations of possible harm to the
Internet.
The RFC Editor, in agreement with the IAB, shall manage mechanisms
for appropriate technical review of Independent Submissions.
Likewise, the IRSG, in agreement with the IAB, shall manage
mechanisms for appropriate technical review of IRTF submissions.
4. Dispute Resolution
Experience has shown that the IESG and the RFC Editor have worked
well together regarding publication recommendations and IESG notes.
Where questions have arisen, they have been quickly resolved when all
parties become aware of the concerns. However, should a dispute ever
arise, a third party can assist with resolution. Therefore, this
dispute procedure has an informal dialogue phase followed by an
arbitration phase if the matter remains unresolved.
If the IESG requests the inclusion of an IESG note and the IRSG or
the RFC Editor intends to publish the document without the requested
IESG note, then they must provide a clear and concise description of
the concerns to the IESG before proceeding. A proposal for alternate
IESG note text from the IRSG or the RFC Editor is highly encouraged.
If the IESG does not want the document to be published without the
requested IESG note, then the IESG must initiate an informal
dialogue. The dialogue should not take more than six weeks. This
period of time allows the IESG to conduct an IETF Last Call
concerning the content of the requested IESG note (and not on the
document as a whole) to determine community consensus if desired. At
the end of the dialogue, the IESG can reaffirm the original IESG
note, provide an alternate IESG note, or withdraw the note
altogether. If an IESG note is requested, the IRSG or the RFC Editor
must state whether they intend to include it.
If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
content of a requested IESG note and they intend to publish the
document as an RFC without the requested IESG note, then the IESG can
formally ask the IAB to provide arbitration. The IAB is not
obligated to perform arbitration and may decline the request. If the
IAB declines, the RFC Editor decides whether the IESG note is
included. If the IAB accepts, the IAB review will occur according to
procedures of the IAB's own choosing. The IAB can direct the
inclusion of the IESG note, direct the withdrawal of the IESG note,
or leave the final decision to the RFC Editor. Unlike the IAB
reviews specified in RFC 4846 [I3], if the IAB directs the inclusion
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
or withdrawal the IESG note, the IAB decision is binding, not
advisory.
5. Examples of Cases Where Publication Is Harmful
This section gives a couple of examples where delaying or preventing
publication of a document might be appropriate due to conflict with
IETF work. It forms part of the background material, not a part of
the procedure.
Rejected Alternative Bypass:
As a WG is working on a solution to a problem, a participant
decides to ask for Independent Submission stream publication of a
solution that the WG has rejected. Publication of the document
will give the publishing party an RFC number before the WG is
finished. It seems better to have the WG product published first,
and have the non-adopted document published later, with a clear
disclaimer note saying that "the IETF technology for this function
is X".
Example: Photuris (RFC 2522), which was published after
IKE (RFC 2409).
Note: In general, the IESG has no problem with rejected
alternatives being made available to the community; such
publications can be a valuable contribution to the technical
literature. However, it is necessary to avoid confusion with the
alternatives adopted by the WG.
Inappropriate Reuse of "free" Bits:
In 2003, a proposal for an experimental RFC was published that
wanted to reuse the high bits of the "fragment offset" part of the
IP header for another purpose. No IANA consideration says how
these bits can be repurposed, but the standard defines a specific
meaning for them. The IESG concluded that implementations of this
experiment risked causing hard-to-debug interoperability problems
and recommended not publishing the document in the RFC series.
The RFC Editor accepted the recommendation.
The RFC series is one of many available publication channels; this
document takes no position on the question of which documents are
appropriate for publication in the RFC Series. That is a matter for
discussion in the Internet community.
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
6. IAB Statement
In its capacity as the body that approves the general policy followed
by the RFC Editor (see RFC 2850 [I4]), the IAB has reviewed this
proposal and supports it as an operational change that is in line
with the respective roles of the IESG, IRTF, and RFC Editor. The IAB
continues to monitor discussions within the IETF about potential
adjustments to the IETF document publication processes and recognizes
that the process described in this document, as well as other general
IETF publication processes, may need to be adjusted to align with any
changes that result from such discussions.
7. Security Considerations
The process change described in this memo has no direct bearing on
the security of the Internet.
8. Acknowledgements
RFC 3932 was a product of the IESG in October 2004, and it was
reviewed in the IETF, by the RFC Editor, and by the IAB. Special
thanks for the development of RFC 3932 go to (in alphabetical order)
Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Eliot
Lear, Keith Moore, Pete Resnick, Kurt Zeilenga, and all other IETF
community participants who provided valuable feedback.
This update to RFC 3932 was the product of the IESG in July and
August of 2008, and it was reviewed in the IETF, by the RFC Editor,
by the IRSG, and by the IAB. Special thanks for the development of
this update go to (in alphabetical order) Jari Arkko, Ran Atkinson,
Leslie Daigle, Lars Eggert, Aaron Falk, Sam Hartman, John Klensin,
Olaf Kolkman, and Andy Malis.
9. References
9.1. Normative Reference
[N1] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[N2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[N3] Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed., "RFC Streams, Headers,
and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 5742 Update to RFC 3932 December 2009
9.2. Informative References
[I1] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
[I2] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Document Stream", RFC 5743, December 2009.
[I3] Klensin, J., Ed., and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent Submissions
to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.
[I4] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Charter of
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, May
2000.
[I5] Alvestrand, H., "An IESG charter", RFC 3710, February 2004.
[I6] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
Authors' Address
Harald Alvestrand
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
Russell Housley
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Alvestrand & Housley Best Current Practice [Page 9]