Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft March 6, 2004
Expires: September 4, 2004
The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures
draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.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 3667.
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 September 4, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document gives the IESG's procedures for handling documents
submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the
changes proposed by the IESG at the Seoul IETF, March 2004.
NOTE IN DRAFT: These guidelines are proposed, not adopted. Comments
are welcome - please send them to iesg@ietf.org.
1. Introduction and history
For several years years, the IESG has reviewed all documents
submitted by individuals for RFC publication ("RFC Editor documents")
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IESG & RFCEd Docs March 2004
before publication. In 2003, this review was often a full scale
review of technical content, with the ADs attempting to clear points
with the authors, stimulate revisions of the documents, encourage the
authors to contact appropriate working groups and so on. This was a
considerable drain on the resources of the IESG, and since this is
not the highest priority task the IESG members do, it often resulted
in significant delays.
In March 2004, the IESG decided to make a major change in this review
model. The new review model will have the IESG take responsibility
for checking for conflicts between the work of the IETF and the
documents submitted ONLY; soliciting technical review is deemed to be
the responsibility of the RFC Editor. If an IESG member has issues
with the technical content of the document, that member will
communicate these issues to the RFC Editor, where they will be
treated the same way as comments on the documents from other sources.
2. Background material
The review of independent submissions by the IESG was prescribed by
RFC 2026 [1] section 4.2.3 and RFC 2418 [2] section 8. RFC 3710 [3]
section 5.2.2 describes the spring 2003 review process; with the
publication of this document, that section is no longer relevant to
documents submitted via the RFC Editor.
3. Detailed description of IESG review
The IESG will review all documents submitted through the RFC Editor
for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the
IETF community. The review is initiated by a note from the RFC Editor
specifying the draft name, the RFC Editor's belief about the
document's present suitability for publication, and (if possible) the
list of people who have reviewed the document for the RFC Editor.
The IESG may return five different responses, all of which may be
accompanied by an IESG note to be put on the document if the RFC
Editor wishes to publish.
o The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF
work.
o The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing.
o The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
in WG <X>, and recommends not publishing the document at this
time.
o The IESG thinks that this document violates IETF procedures for
<X>, and should therefore not be published without IETF review.
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IESG & RFCEd Docs March 2004
o The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review, and should therefore not be
published without IETF review.
The last two cases are included for the case where a document
attempts to do things (such as URI scheme definition) that require
IETF consensus or IESG approval, and the case where an IETF protocol
is proposed to be changed or extended in an unanticipated way that
may be harmful to the normal usage of the protocol, but where the
protocol documents do not explicitly say that this type of extension
requires IETF review. (NOTE IN DRAFT - the examples section should
have an example of this case.)
In the case of a document requiring 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 IESG review including
possible assignment to a WG or rejection. (NOTE IN DRAFT: it's unfair
to say "you can't publish it there, and we refuse to take it there" -
so if we reject publication without IETF review, we have to offer the
opportunity for IETF review....)
The IESG will attempt to have review done within 4 weeks from the RFC
Editor's notification. 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 the WG, and in the
case of a possible conflict with an IANA registration procedure, the
IESG may contact the IANA expert for that registry; in these cases up
to 8 weeks may be required, and the RFC Editor will be sent a note
saying that the IESG is consulting with <X> about the document.
Note that judging the technical merits of submissions, including
considerations of possible harm to the Internet, will become solely
the responsbility of the RFC Editor. The IESG assumes that the RFC
Editor will create its own mechanisms for additional technical
review.
4. Standard IESG note
One of the following IESG notes will be sent to the RFC Editor for
all documents, unless the IESG decides otherwise:
o For documents that have been considered in the IETF at one time:
This document was at one time considered by the IETF, and
therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a
published IETF work. This document is not a candidate for any
level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of
the fitness of this document for any purpose, and in particular
notes that it is not known to have had IETF review for security,
congestion control or inappropriate interaction with deployed
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IESG & RFCEd Docs March 2004
protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution
in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.
o For documents that are independent of the IETF process:
This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this
document for any purpose, and in particular notes that it is not
known to have had IETF review for security, congestion control or
inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor
has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of
this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
implementation and deployment.
5. Examples of cases where publication is harmful
This section gives a couple of examples where it might be appropriate
to delay or prevent publishing of a document due to conflict with
IETF work. It forms part of the background material, not a part of
the procedure.
Publish While Waiting: In 2003, the V6OPS WG was working on
establishing evaluation criteria for the family of mechanisms known
as "IPv6 transition mechanisms". The author of one of these
mechanisms asked for publication as Experimental. The judgment of the
WG chairs at the time was that publication of this document would
remove sufficient energy from the group that the evaluation criteria
work would not be finished, and the IETF would be unable to make a
well thought out choice between mechanisms to pursue. Thus, the WG
asked for this document not to be published at that time.
Rejected Alternative Bypass: A WG is working on a solution to a
problem, and a participant decides to ask for publication of a
solution that the WG has rejected. Publication of the document will
give the publishing party an RFC number to refer to 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).
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.
There is no IANA consideration saying how these bits can be
repurposed - but the standard defines a 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
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IESG & RFCEd Docs March 2004
the recommendation.
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 the working group
did adopt.
The RFC series is one of many available publication channels; this
document takes no position on the question of which documents the RFC
series is appropriate for - this is a matter for discussion in the
IETF community.
6. Security Considerations
The process change described in this memo has no bearing on the
security of the Internet.
References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[3] Alvestrand, H., "An IESG Charter", February 2004.
Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IESG & RFCEd Docs March 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.
Alvestrand Expires September 4, 2004 [Page 6]
