home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group J. Postel
- Request for Comments: 1871 ISI
- Updates: 1602, 1603 November 1995
- BCP: 2
- Category: Best Current Practice
-
-
- Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure
-
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
- Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
- improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- Abstract
-
- This document describes a modification to the IETF procedures to
- allow an escape from a situation where the existing procedures are
- not working or do not seem to apply. This is a modification to the
- procedures of RFC 1602 and 1603.
-
- Introduction
-
- The current IETF procedures are documented in "The Internet Standards
- Process -- Revision 2" [1], and "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
- Procedures" [2].
-
- There may be situations where following the procedures leads to a
- deadlock, or there may be situations where the procedures provide no
- guidance. In these cases it may be appropriate to invoke the
- variance procedure described below.
-
- A revision of the rules specified in RFC 1602 is underway, but may
- take some time. This document describes an interim amendment to RFC
- 1602, to avoid having to wait for this major revision in a state of
- paralysis.
-
- Guiding Principles
-
- Any variance from following the written rules must be a public
- process with opportunity for all concerned parties to comment.
-
- The variance procedure should be similar to existing mechanisms and
- involve existing bodies.
-
-
-
-
-
- Postel Best Current Practice [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995
-
-
- The Variance Procedure
-
- Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
- no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of the
- responsible ad hoc committee), the IESG may enter a particular
- specification into, or advance it within, the standards track even
- though some of the requirements of section 5 of RFC 1602 have not or
- will not be met. The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only
- if it first determines that the likely benefits to the Internet
- community from entering or advancing the specification on the
- standards track are likely to outweigh the costs to the Internet
- community that result from noncompliance with section 5. In
- exercising this discretion, the IESG shall consider (a) the technical
- merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
- goals of the Internet standards process without granting a variance,
- (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral
- and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's
- ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In
- determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to
- limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of section 5 and
- to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it
- determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
- community.
-
- There are five aspects that are involved in the variance procedure:
- (1) detecting the problem, (2) proposing a solution, (3) public
- review, (4) accepting the solution, and (5) an appeal process.
-
- 1. Detecting the problem
-
- The responsible IETF Working Group, (or, if no Working Group is
- constituted, the responsible ad hoc committee), may bring the matter
- of a variance before the IESG.
-
- 2. Proposing the solution
-
- The IESG is responsible for proposing the solution.
-
- The IESG may enter a particular specification into, or advance it
- within, the standards track even though some of the requirements of
- section 5 of RFC 1602 have not or will not be met.
-
- In exercising this discretion, the IESG shall consider (a) the
- technical merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of
- achieving the goals of the Internet standards process without
- granting a variance, (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance,
- (d) the collateral and precedential effects of granting a variance,
- and (e) the IESG's ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as
-
-
-
- Postel Best Current Practice [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995
-
-
- possible.
-
- The IESG should consult WG chair and appropriate WG members as
- needed, and the wishes of the WG should also be taken into account.
-
- 3. Public review
-
- There shall be an extended Last Call for public review.
-
- 4. Accepting the solution
-
- The IESG is responsible for accepting the solution, and incorporating
- comments from the Last Call.
-
- The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only if it first
- determines that the likely benefits to the Internet community from
- entering or advancing the specification on the standards track are
- likely to outweigh the costs to the Internet community that result
- from noncompliance with section 5 of RFC 1602.
-
- In determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion
- to limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of section 5
- of RFC 1602 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations
- as it determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
- community.
-
- 5. The appeal procedure
-
- The IAB is responsible for hearing and deciding appeals.
-
- Discussion
-
- When the IESG (on reviewing a recommendation for a variance) the has
- determined that there is a situation where the existing written rules
- do not apply or lead to a deadlock, the IESG may propose a solution
- to the problem.
-
- The solution may be developed by the IESG or suggested to the IESG.
-
- The solution may either (1) decide the particular instance of the
- matter, or (2) define a procedure for resolving matters of this kind.
-
- In any case, the proposed solution will be documented in an Internet
- Draft and subjected to an extended Last Call.
-
- Depending on the results of the Last Call, the IESG will either
- accept the solution; or revise the proposal, update the Internet
- Draft, and initiate another extended Last Call.
-
-
-
- Postel Best Current Practice [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995
-
-
- When the IESG accepts a solution the Internet Draft shall be
- forwarded to the RFC Editor and published as an RFC.
-
- The IAB shall be available to hear and decide on appeals of the use
- this variance procedure.
-
- Acknowledgements
-
- The contributions of the IAB and the IESG -- and Brian Carpenter,
- Paul Mockapetris, Christian Huitema, Robert Elz, Frank Kastenholz,
- and Scott Bradner, in particular -- are gratefully acknowledged.
- Scott deserves special credit for working with the lawyers to get
- that first paragraph in the "The Variance Procedure" section.
-
- References
-
- [1] IAB, and IESG, "Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC
- 1602, IAB and IESG, March 1994.
-
- [2] Huizer, E., and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
- Procedures", RFC 1603, SURFnet and Silicon Graphics, Inc., March
- 1994.
-
- Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
-
- Authors' Address
-
- Jon Postel
- USC - ISI, Suite 1001
- 4676 Admiralty Way
- Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
- Phone: 310-822-1511
- EMail: postel@isi.edu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Postel Best Current Practice [Page 4]
-
-