Internet Info 1997 December

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Internet Info 1997 December / Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso / drafts / draft_ietf_j_p / draft-ietf-poisson-wg-guide-01.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1997-09-11 | 54KB | 1,118 lines

Network Working Group S. Bradner Internet-Draft Harvard University Editor September 1997 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures <draft-ietf-poisson-wg-guide-01.txt> Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft. 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.'' To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Abstract The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has responsibility for developing and reviewing specifications intended as Internet Standards. IETF activities are organized into working groups (WGs). This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. It also describes the formal relationship between IETF participants WG and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of IETF participants, including WG Chairs, WG participants, and IETF Area Directors. Table of Contents Status of this Memo.................................................1 Abstract............................................................1 1. Introduction.....................................................2 1.1. IETF approach to standardization.............................4 1.2. Roles within a Working Group.................................4 2. Working group formation..........................................4 2.1. Criteria for formation.......................................4 2.2. Charter......................................................5 Bradner [Page 1] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 2.3. Charter review & approval....................................7 2.4. Birds of a feather (BOF).....................................8 3. Working Group Operation..........................................9 3.1. Session planning.............................................9 3.2. Session venue...............................................10 3.3. Session management..........................................11 3.4. Contention and appeals......................................12 4. Working Group Termination.......................................13 5. Rechartering a Working Group....................................13 6. Staff Roles.....................................................13 6.1. WG Chair....................................................14 6.2. WG Secretary................................................15 6.3. Document Editor.............................................15 6.4. WG Facilitator..............................................16 6.5. Design teams................................................16 6.6. Working Group Consultant....................................16 6.7. Area Director...............................................16 7. Working Group Documents.........................................16 7.1. Session documents...........................................16 7.2. IETF meeting documents......................................16 7.3. Internet-Drafts (I-D).......................................17 7.4. Request For Comments (RFC)..................................17 7.5. Working Group Last-Call.....................................17 7.6. Submission of documents.....................................18 8. Review of documents.............................................18 9. Security Considerations.........................................19 10. Acknowledgments................................................19 11. References.....................................................20 12. Authors' Address...............................................20 Appendix: Sample Working Group Charter............................21 1. Introuction The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the global Internet but use the Internet Standards. Internet Standards are developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This document defines guidelines and procedures for IETF working groups. The Internet Standards Process of the IETF is defined in [1]. The organizations involved in the IETF Standards Process are described in [2] as are the roles of specific individuals. The IETF is a large, open community of network designers, operators, vendors, users, and researchers concerned with the Internet and the technology used on it. The primary activities of the IETF are performed by committees known as working groups. There are currently Bradner [Page 2] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 more than 100 working groups. ( See the IETF web page for a up-to- date list of IETF Working Groups - http://www.ietf.org.) Working groups tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by the completion of a specific set of tasks, although there are exceptions. For management purposes, the IETF working groups are collected together into areas, with each area having a separate focus. For example, the security area deals with the development of security- related technology. Each IETF area is managed by one or two Area Directors. There are currently 8 areas in the IETF but the number changes from time to time. (See the IETF web page for a list of the current areas, the Area Directors for each area, and a list of which working groups are assigned to each area.) In many areas the Area Directors have formed an advisory group or directorate. These comprise experienced members of the IETF and the technical community represented by the area The specific name and the details of the role for each group differs from area to area, but the primary intent is that these groups assist the Area Director(s), e.g., with the review of specifications produced in the area. The IETF area directors are selected by a nominating committee, which also selects an overall chair for the IETF. The nominations process is described in [3]. The area directors sitting as a body, along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The IETF Executive Director is an ex-officio participant of the IESG, as are the IAB Chair and a designated Internet Architecture Board (IAB) liaison. The IESG approves IETF Standards and approves the publication of other IETF documents. (See [1].) A small IETF Secretariat provides staff and administrative support for the operation of the IETF. There is no formal membership in the IETF. Participation is open to all. This participation may be by on-line contribution, attendance at face-to-face sessions, or both. Anyone from the Internet community who has the time and interest is urged to participate in IETF meetings and any of its on-line working group discussions. Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by formal representatives of organizations. This document defines procedures and guidelines for formation and operation of working groups in the IETF. It defines the relations of working groups to other bodies within the IETF. The duties of working group Chairs and Area Directors with respect to the operation of the working group are also defined. When used in this document the key Bradner [Page 3] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [6]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. The same key words are used in this document to help smooth WG operation and reduce the chance for confusion about the processes. 1.1. IETF approach to standardization Familiarity with The Internet Standards Process [1] is essential for a complete understanding of the philosophy, procedures and guidelines described in this document. 1.2. Roles within a Working Group The document "Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process" [2] describes the roles of a number of individuals within a working group, including the working group chair and the document editor. These descriptions are expanded later in this document. 2. Working group formation IETF working groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations. A working group may be established at the initiative of an Area Director or it may be initiated by an individual or group of individuals. Anyone interested in creating an IETF working group MUST obtain the advice and consent of the IETF Area Director(s) in whose area the working group would fall and MUST proceed through the formal steps detailed in this section. Working groups are typically created to address a specific problem or to produce one or more specific deliverables (a guideline, standards specification, etc.). Working groups are generally expected to be short-lived in nature. Upon completion of its goals and achievement of its objectives, the working group is terminated. A working group may also be terminated for other reasons. (see section 4) Alternatively with the concurrence of the IESG, Area Director, the WG Chair, and the WG participants, the objectives or assignment of the working group may be extended by modifying the working group's charter through a rechartering process (see section 5). 2.1. Criteria for formation When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several issues: - Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and relevant to the Internet community? - Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable within a reasonable time frame? - What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the level Bradner [Page 4] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 of effort required? - Do the working group's activities overlap with those of another working group? If so, it may still be appropriate to create the working group, but this question must be considered carefully by the Area Directors as subdividing efforts often dilutes the available technical expertise. - Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)? Working groups require considerable effort, including management of the working group process, editing of working group documents, and contributing to the document text. IETF experience suggests that these roles typically cannot all be handled by one person; a minimum of four or five active participants in the management positions are typically required in addition to a minimum of one or two dozen people that will attend the working group meetings and contribute on the mailing list. NOTE: The interest must be broad enough that a working group would not be seen as merely the activity of a single vendor. - Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the working group? - Does a base of interested consumers (end users) appear to exist for the planned work? Consumer interest can be measured by participation of end-users within the IETF process, as well as by less direct means. - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? There are many Internet-related technologies that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the IETF may not be in a position to effect the course of the technology in the "real world". For example, if the technology is being developed by another standards body or an industry consortium. - Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the proposed working group's efforts issues understood? - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF participants may be limited. - Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to pursue? This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere. Considering the above criteria, the Area Director(s), using his or her best judgement, will decide whether to pursue the formation of the group through the chartering process. 2.2. Charter The formation of a working group requires a charter which is primarily negotiated between a prospective working group Chair and the relevant Area Director(s), although final approval is made by the Bradner [Page 5] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 IESG with advice from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). A charter is a contract between a working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks. A charter: 1. Lists relevant administrative information for the working group; 2. Specifies the direction or objectives of the working group and describes the approach that will be taken to achieve the goals; and 3. Enumerates a set of milestones together with time frames for their completion. When the prospective Chair(s), the Area Director and the IETF Secretariat are satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the basis for forming a working group. Note that an Area Director MAY require the holding an exploratory Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting, as described below, to gage the level of support for a working group before submitting the charter to the IESG and IAB for approval. Charters may be renegotiated periodically to reflect the current status, organization or goals of the working group. (see section 5) Hence, a charter is a contract between the IETF and the working group which is committing to meet explicit milestones and delivering specific "products". Specifically, each charter consists of the following sections: Working group name A working group name should be reasonably descriptive or identifiable. Additionally, the group shall define an acronym (maximum 8 printable ASCII characters) to reference the group in the IETF directories, mailing lists, and general documents. Chair(s) The working group may have one or more Chairs to perform the administrative functions of the group. The email address(es) of the Chair(s) shall be included. Generally a working group is limited to two chairs. Area and Area Director(s) The name of the IETF area with which the working group is affiliated and the name and electronic mail address of the associated Area Director(s). Area Advisor If the area has two Area Directors one of them MUST be listed as the primary contact for the working group. Mailing list An IETF working group MUST have a general Internet mailing list. Most of the work of an IETF working group will be conducted on the mailing list. The working group charter MUST include: 1. The address to which a participant sends a subscription request and the procedures to follow when subscribing, Bradner [Page 6] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 2. The address to which a participant sends submissions and special procedures, if any, and 3. The location of the mailing list archive. A message archive MUST be maintained in a public place which can be accessed via FTP or via the web. The address "ietf-archive@ietf.org" MUST be included in the mailing list in order that a copy of all mailing list messages is sent to an archive at the IETF Secretariat. There is an archive of a number of working group mailing lists at ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archives. This is a service offered by the IETF Secretariat but it does not eliminate the need for each WG to maintain their own set of archives. NOTE: In keeping with the general IETF rule for openness, the membership of the mailing list must be made available. Description of working group The focus and intent of the group shall be set forth briefly. By reading this section alone, an individual should be able to decide whether this group is relevant to their own work. The first paragraph must give a brief summary of the problem area, basis, goal(s) and approach(es) planned for the working group. This paragraph can be used as an overview of the working group's effort. To facilitate evaluation of the intended work and to provide on- going guidance to the working group, the charter must describe the problem being solved and must discuss objectives and expected impact with respect to: - Architecture - Operations - Security - Network management - Scaling - Transition (where applicable) Goals and milestones The working group charter MUST establish a timetable for specific work items. While this may be re-negotiated 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) An example of a WG charter is included as Appendix A. Bradner [Page 7] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 2.3. Charter review & approval Proposed working groups often comprise technically competent participants who are not familiar with the history of Internet architecture or IETF processes. This can, unfortunately, lead to good working group consensus about a bad design. To facilitate working group efforts, an Area Director may assign a Consultant from among the ranks of senior IETF participants. (Consultants are described in section 6.) At the discretion of the Area Director, approval of a new WG may be withheld in the absence of sufficient consultant resources. Once the Area Director (and the Area Directorate, as the Area Director deems appropriate) has approved the working group charter, the charter is submitted for review by the IAB and approval by the IESG. The IESG MAY approve the charter as-is, it MAY request that changes be made in the charter, or MAY decline to approve chartering of the working group If the IESG approves the formation of the working group it remands the approved charter to the IETF Secretariat who records and enters the information into the IETF tracking database. The working group is announced to the IETF-announce mailing list by the IETF Secretariat. 2.4. Birds of a feather (BOF) Often it is not clear whether an issue merits the formation of a working group. To facilitate exploration of the issues the IETF offers the possibility of a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session, as well as the early formation of an email list for preliminary discussion. In addition, a BOF may serve as a forum for a single presentation or discussion, without any intent to form a working group. A BOF is a session at an IETF meeting which permits "market research" and technical "brainstorming". Any individual may request permission to hold a BOF on a subject. The request MUST be filed with a relevant Area Director who must approve a BOF before it can be scheduled. The person who requests the BOF is usually appointed as Chair of the BOF. The Chair of the BOF is also responsible for providing a report on the outcome of the BOF. If the Area Director approves the BOF is then scheduled by submitting a request to agenda@ietf.org with copies to the area Area Director(s). A BOF description and agenda are required before a BOF can be scheduled. The Area Director MAY require the establishment of an open email list prior to authorizing a BOF. This permits initial exchanges and sharing of framework, vocabulary and approaches, in order to make the time spent in the BOF more productive. The Area Director MAY require that a BOF be held, prior to establishing a working group (see Bradner [Page 8] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 section 2.2). The Area Director MAY require that there be a draft of the WG charter prior to holding a BOF. The Area Director MAY require that a BOF not be held until an Internet-Draft describing the proposed technology has been published so it can be used as a basis for discussion in the BOF. In general BOF on a particular topic is held only once (ONE slot at one IETF Plenary meeting). Under unusual circumstances Area Directors may, at their discretion, allow a BOF to meet for a second time. BOFs are not permitted to meet three times. Note that all other things being equal, WGs will be given priority for meeting space over BOFs. Usually the outcome of a BOF will be one of the following: - There was enough interest and focus in the subject to warrant the formation of a WG; - While there was a reasonable level of interest expressed in the BOF some other criteria for working group formation was not met. (see section 2.1) - The discussion came to a fruitful conclusion, with results to be written down and published, however there is no need to establish a WG; or - There was not enough interest in the subject to warrant the formation of a WG. 3. Working Group Operation The IETF has basic requirements for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of technical alternatives. Within those constraints, working groups are autonomous and each determines most of the details of its own operation with respect to session participation, reaching closure, etc. The core rule for operation is that acceptance or agreement is achieved via working group "rough consensus". WG participants should specifically note the requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest in [2]. A number of procedural questions and issues will arise over time, and it is the function of the Working Group Chair(s) to manage the group process, keeping in mind that the overall purpose of the group is to make progress towards reaching rough consensus in realizing the working group's goals and objectives. There are few hard and fast rules on organizing or conducting working group activities, but a set of guidelines and practices have evolved over time that have proven successful. These are listed here, with actual choices typically determined by the working group participants and the Chair(s). 3.1. Session planning For coordinated, structured WG interactions, the Chair(s) MUST Bradner [Page 9] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 publish a draft agenda well in advance of the actual session. The agenda should contain at least: - The items for discussion; - The estimated time necessary per item; and - A clear indication of what documents the participants will need to read before the session in order to be well prepared. Publication of the working group agenda shall include sending a copy of the agenda to the working group mailing list and to agenda@ietf.org. All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. It is common, but not required, that a working group will meet at the IETF Plenary meetings. Additionally, interim sessions may be scheduled for telephone conference, video teleconference, or for face-to-face (physical) sessions. All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall be submitted in printable ASCII text for publication in the IETF Proceedings, and for posting in the IETF Directories and are to be sent to: minutes@ietf.org 3.2. Session venue Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to- face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones. Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group participants. In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only participants. Also note that decisions reached during IETF meetings are NOT final, but MUST be conveyed to the mailing list to verify WG consensus. IETF Meetings If a WG needs a session at an IETF meeting, the Chair must apply for time-slots as soon as the first announcement of that IETF meeting is made by the IETF Secretariat to the WG-chairs list. Session time is Bradner [Page 10] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 a scarce resource at IETF meetings, so placing requests early will facilitate schedule coordination for WGs requiring the same set of experts. The application for a WG session at an IETF meeting MUST be made to the IETF Secretariat at the address agenda@ietf.org. Some Area Directors may want to coordinate WG sessions in their area and request that time slots be coordinated through them. If this is the case it will be noted in the IETF meeting announcement. A WG scheduling request MUST contain: - The working group name and full title; - The amount of time requested; - The rough outline of the WG agenda that is expected to be covered; - The estimated number of people that will attend the WG session; - Related WGs that should not be scheduled for the same time slot(s); and - Optionally a request can be added for the WG session to be transmitted over the Internet in audio and video.. NOTE: While open discussion and contribution is essential to working group success, the Chair is responsible for ensuring forward progress. When acceptable to the WG, the Chair may call for restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at IETF working group sessions for the purpose of achieving progress. The Working Group Chair then has the authority to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the Chair is disrupting the WG process. The Chair should consult with the Area Director(s) if the individual persists in disruptive behavior. On-line It can be quite useful to conduct email exchanges in the same manner as a face-to-face session, with published schedule and agenda, as well as on-going summarization and consensus polling. Many working group participants hold that mailing list discussion is the best place to consider and resolve issues and make decisions. Choice of operational style is made by the working group itself. It is important to note, however, that Internet email discussion is possible for a much wider base of interested persons than is attendance at IETF meetings, due to the time and expense required to attend. As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the behavior by communication directly with the offending individual rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then Bradner [Page 11] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of operation.) Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list. 3.3. Session management Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine that rough consensus has been reached. The challenge to managing working group sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need to make forward progress. The working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for striking this balance. The Chair has the responsibility for overseeing the process but may delegate direct process management to a formally-designated Facilitator. It is occasionally appropriate to revisit a topic, to re-evaluate alternatives or to improve the group's understanding of a relevant decision. However, unnecessary repeated discussions on issues can be avoided if the Chair makes sure that the main arguments in the discussion (and the outcome) are summarized and archived after a discussion has come to conclusion. It is also good practice to note important decisions/consensus reached by email in the minutes of the next 'live' session, and to summarize briefly the decision-making history in the final documents the WG produces. To facilitate making forward progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from a member, based upon the following criteria: Old The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and is redundant with information previously available; Minor The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been Bradner [Page 12] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing decision; Timing The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet opened for discussion; or Scope The input is outside of the scope of the working group charter. 3.4. Contention and appeals Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. Formal procedures for requesting a review of WG, Chair, Area Director or IESG actions and conducting appeals are documented in The Internet Standards Process [1]. 4. Working Group Termination Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task or tasks. After the tasks are complete, the group will be disbanded. However if a WG produces a Proposed or Draft Standard, the WG will become dormant rather than disband (i.e., the WG will no longer conduct formal activities, but the mailing list will remain available to review the work as it moves to Draft Standard and Standard status.) If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group is unable to complete the work outlined in the charter, or if the assumptions which that work was based have been modified in discussion or by experience, the Area Director, in consultation with the working group can either: 1. Recharter to refocus its tasks, 2. Choose new Chair(s), or 3. Disband. If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's choice, it may appeal to the IESG. (see section 3.4) 5. Rechartering a Working Group Updated milestones are re-negotiated with the Area Director and the IESG, as needed, and then are submitted to the IESG Secretary: iesg- Bradner [Page 13] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 secretary@ietf.org Rechartering (other than revising milestones) a working group follows the same procedures that the initial chartering does. (see section 2) The revised charter must be submitted to the IESG and IAB for approval. As with the initial chartering, the IESG may approve new charter as-is, it may request that changes be made in the new charter (including having the Working Group continue to use the old charter), or it may decline to approve the rechartered working group. In the latter case the working group is disbanded. 6. Staff Roles Working groups require considerable care and feeding. In addition to general participation, successful working groups benefit from the efforts of participants filling specific functional roles. The Area Director must agree to the specific people performing the WG Chair, Document Editor and Working Group Consultant roles, and they serve at the discretion of the Area Director. 6.1. WG Chair The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the conduct of WG business. The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks. This encompasses at the very least the following: Ensure WG process and content management The Chair has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a working group achieves forward progress and meets its milestones. The Chair is also responsible to ensure that the working group operates in an open and fair manner. For some working groups, this can be accomplished by having the Chair perform all management-related activities. In other working groups -- particularly those with large or divisive participation -- it is helpful to allocate process and/or secretarial functions to other participants. Process management pertains strictly to the style of working group interaction and not to its content. It ensures fairness and detects redundancy. The secretarial function encompasses document editing. It is quite common for a working group to assign the task of specification Editor to one or two participants. Sometimes, they also are part of the design team, described below. Moderate the WG email list The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on this list are relevant and that they converge to consensus agreements. The Chair should make sure that discussions on the list are summarized and that the outcome is well documented (to avoid repetition). The Chair also may choose to schedule organized on-line "sessions" with Bradner [Page 14] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 agenda and deliverables. These can be structured as true meetings, conducted over the course of several days (to allow participation across the Internet.) Organize, prepare and chair face-to-face & on- line formal sessions Plan WG Sessions The Chair must plan and announce all WG sessions well in advance. (See section 3.1) Communicate results of sessions The Chair and/or Secretary must ensure that minutes of a session are taken and that an attendance list is circulated. (See section 3.1) Immediately after a session, the WG Chair MUST provide the Area Director with a very short report (approximately one paragraph, via email) on the session. This is used in an Area Report presented in the Proceedings of each IETF meeting. Distribute the workload Of course each WG will have participants who may not be able (or want) to do any work at all. Most of the time the bulk of the work is done by a few dedicated participants. It is the task of the Chair to motivate enough experts to allow for a fair distribution of the workload. Document development Working groups produce documents and documents need authors. The Chair must make sure that authors of WG documents incorporate changes as agreed to by the WG. (See section 6.3) Document publication The Chair and/or Document Editor will work with the RFC Editor to ensure document conformance with RFC publication requirements and to coordinate any editorial changes suggested by the RFC Editor. A particular concern is that all participants are working from the same version of a document at the same time. Document implementations Under the procedures described in [1] the Chair is responsible for documenting the specific implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet Standard status along with documentation about testing of the interoperation of these implementations. 6.2. WG Secretary Taking minutes and editing working group documents often is performed by a specifically-designated participant or set of participants. In this role, the Secretary's job is to record WG decisions, rather than Bradner [Page 15] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 to perform basic specification. 6.3. Document Editor Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of documents, that capture the results of the group's work. A working group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor for a particular document. The Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by the working group. As a general practice, the Working Group Chair and Document Editor positions are filled by different individuals to help ensure that the resulting documents accurately reflect the consensus of the working group and that all processes are followed. 6.4. WG Facilitator When meetings tend to become distracted or divisive, it often is helpful to assign the task of "process management" to one participant. Their job is to oversee the nature, rather than the content, of participant interactions. That is, they attend to the style of the discussion and to the schedule of the agenda, rather than making direct technical contributions themselves. 6.5. Design teams In some cases some of the detailed specification effort within a working group may be done by sub-groups, referred to as design teams, with the (implicit or explicit) approval of the working group and the explicit approval of the Area Director. Such a team may hold closed sessions for conducting portions of the specification effort. All work products of a design team must be available for review by all working group participants. The design team must be responsive to the direction of the working group's consensus and its output is subject to the approval of the working group. The duration of a design team effort is up to the working group chair(s) and the Area Director(s). 6.6. Working Group Consultant At the discretion of the Area Director, a Consultant may be assigned to a working group. Consultants have specific technical background appropriate to the WG and experience in Internet architecture and IETF process. 6.7. Area Director Area Directors are responsible for ensuring that working groups in their area produce coherent, coordinated, architecturally consistent and timely output as a contribution to the overall results of the IETF. Bradner [Page 16] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 7. Working Group Documents 7.1. Session documents All relevant documents for a session (including the final agenda) should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. Any document which does not meet this pubication deadline can only be discussed in a working group session with the specific approval of the working group chair(s). 7.2. IETF meeting documents In preparing for an IETF meeting it is helpful to have ready access to all documents that are being reviewed. Thus all documents which will be under discussion in a working group session must be published as Internet-Drafts before the session. 7.3. Internet-Drafts (I-D) The Internet-Drafts directory is provided to working groups as a resource for posting and disseminating in-process copies of working group documents. This repository is replicated at various locations around the Internet. It is encouraged that draft documents be posted as soon as they become reasonably stable. It is stressed here that Internet-Drafts are working documents and have no official standards status whatsoever. They may, eventually, turn into a standards-track document or they may sink from sight. Internet-Drafts are submitted to: internet-drafts@ietf.org The format of an Internet-Draft must be the same as for an RFC [2]. Further, an I-D must contain: - Beginning, standard, boilerplate text which is provided by the Secretariat on their web site and in the ftp directory; - The I-D filename; and - The expiration date for the I-D. Complete specification of requirements for an Internet-Draft are found in the file "1id-guidelines.txt" in the Internet-Drafts directory at an Internet Repository site. The organization of the Internet-Drafts directory is found in the file "1id-organization" in the Internet-Drafts directory at an Internet Repository site. This file also contains the rules for naming Internet-Drafts (See [1] for more information about Internet-Drafts.) 7.4. Request For Comments (RFC) The work of an IETF working group often results in publication of one or more documents, as part of the Request For Comments (RFCs) [1] series. This series is the archival publication record for the Internet community. A document can be written by an individual in a Bradner [Page 17] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 working group, by a group as a whole with a designated Editor, or by others not involved with the IETF. NOTE: The RFC series is a publication mechanism only and publication does not determine the IETF status of a document. Status is determined through separate, explicit status labels assigned by the IESG on behalf of the IETF. In other words, the reader is reminded that all Internet Standards are published as RFCs, but NOT all RFCs specify standards. [4] 7.5. Working Group Last-Call When a WG decides that a document is ready for publication it may be submitted to the IESG for consideration. In most cases the determination that a WG feels that a document is ready for publication is done by the WG Chair issuing a working group Last- Call. The decision to issue a working group Last-Call is at the discretion of the WG Chair working with the Area Director. A working group Last-Call serves the same purpose within a working group that an IESG Last-Call does in the broader IETF community. (See [1].) 7.6 Submission of documents Once that a WG has determined that at least rough consensus exists within the WG for the advancement of a document the following must be done: - The version of the relevant document exactly as agreed to by the WG MUST be in the Internet-Drafts directory; - The relevant document MUST be formatted according to RFC rules [5]. - The WG Chair MUST send email to the relevant Area Director. A copy of the request MUST be also sent to the IESG Secretary. The mail MUST contain the reference to the document's ID filename, and the action requested. Unless returned to the WG for further development, progressing of the document is then the responsibility of the IESG. After IESG approval, responsibility for final disposition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Editor and the WG Chair and the Document Editor. 8. Review of documents The IESG reviews all documents submitted for publication as RFCs. Usually minimal IESG review is necessary in the case of a submission from a WG intended as an Informational or Experimental RFC. More extensive review is undertaken in the case of standards-track documents. Prior to the IESG beginning their deliberations, IETF Secretariat will issue a "Last-Call" to the IETF mailing list. (See [1]) This Bradner [Page 18] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 Last Call will announce the intention of the IESG to consider the document, and it will solicit final comments from the IETF within a period of two weeks. It is important to note that a Last-Call is intended as a brief, final check with the Internet community, to make sure that no important concerns have been missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should not serve as a more general, in-depth review. The IESG review takes into account responses to the Last-Call and will lead to one of these possible conclusions: 1. The document is accepted as is for the status requested. This fact will be announced by the IETF Secretariat to the IETF mailing list and to the RFC Editor. 2. The document is accepted as-is but not for the status requested. This fact will be announced by the IETF Secretariat to the IETF mailing list and to the RFC Editor. (see [1] for more details) 3. Changes regarding content are suggested to the author(s)/WG. Suggestions from the IESG must be clear and direct, so as to facilitate working group and author correction of the specification. If the author(s)/WG can explain to the satisfaction of the IESG why the changes are not necessary, the document will be accepted for publication as under point 1, above. If the changes are made the revised document may be resubmitted for IESG review. 4. Changes are suggested by the IESG and a change in status is recommended. The process described above for 3 and 2 are followed in that order. 5. The document is rejected. Any document rejection will be accompanied by specific and thorough arguments from the IESG. Although the IETF and working group process is structured such that this alternative is not likely to arise for documents coming from a working group the IESG has the right and responsibility to reject documents that the IESG feels are fatally flawed in some way. If any individual or group of individuals feels that the review treatment has been unfair, there is the opportunity to make a procedural complaint. The mechanism for this type of complaints is described in [1]. 9. Security Considerations Documents describing IETF processes, such as this one, do not have an Bradner [Page 19] Internet-Draft Working Group Guidelines September 1997 impact on the security of the network infrastructure or of Internet applications. It should be noted that all IETF working groups are required to examine and understand the security implications of any technology they develop. This analysis must be included in any resulting RFCs in a Security Considerations section. Note that merely noting a significant security hole is no longer sufficient. IETF developed technologies should not add insecurity to the environment in which they are run. 10. Acknowledgments This revision of this document relies heavily on the previous version (RFC 1603) which was edited by Erik Huizer and Dave Crocker. It has been reviewed by the poisson working group. 11. References [1] Bradner, S. Ed., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, Harvard University, October 1996. [2] Hovey, R., S. Bradner, "The Organizations involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC 2028, Digital Equipment Corp., Harvard University, October 1996 [3] Gavin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", RFC 2027, CommerceNet, October 1996 [4] Huitema, C., J. Postel, S. Crocker, "Not all RFCs are Standards", RFC 1796, INRIA, ISI, CyberCash, April 1995 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level", RFC 2119, March 1997 12. Authors' Address Scott Bradner Harvard University 1350 Mass Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 USA phone +1 617 495 3864 Appendix: Sample Working Group Charter GOOD SAMPLE WG CHARTER TO BE SELECTED Bradner [Page 20]