Network Working Group J. Arkko (Editor)
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational March 5, 2007
Expires: September 6, 2007
Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents
draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 6, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This note discusses the process related to "individual submissions",
publication of RFCs by finding a sponsoring Area Director to take it
through IETF and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) review.
This note covers both the the processing in the IESG as well as
guidance on when such sponsoring is appropriate.
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Choosing Documents to Sponsor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Summary of Changes to Existing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Secretariat Response to Submissions . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix C. PROTO Write-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
1. Introduction
"Individual submissions" are documents intended to become RFCs
through the IETF, without being submitted by a Working Group (WG).
The publication of these documents requires the authors to find
sponsoring Area Director (AD) to take it through IETF and Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG) review. Accordingly, this
publication method is sometimes called the "AD Sponsored" method.
The note is concerned with the IESG processing by the AD Sponsored
method. This note also provides guidance for choosing between
individual submissions and independent submissions through the RFC
Editor.
This note describes procedures and working methods. It does not
change any underlying rules such as those in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] or
the operation of the RFC Editor as defined in [I-D.iab-rfc-editor].
The note also does not change the procedures related to independent
submissions or other RFC streams [I-D.iab-rfc-editor]
[I-D.klensin-rfc-independent].
2. Requirements language
In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "OPTIONAL",
"RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as
described in [RFC2119].
3. Submission
Individual submissions enter the process through an agreement with an
AD. Such agreements are usually the result of the AD tracking the
work earlier, or discussions between the authors and the AD. And
sometimes the AD agrees with a WG that a particular document should
be progressed as an individual submission.
Similar to the process for WG submissions, the authors may find a
willing external Shepherd [I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding].
The task of the Shepherd is to manage the discussions relating to the
document's process through the system. The Shepherd will also
provide a write-up similar to Document Shepherd Write-ups for WG
documents. Appendix C explains how to interpret the normal write-up
template for individual submissions. If no Shepherd can be
identified, the tasks of the Shepherd fall on the AD. In that case
the authors should, however, provide the write up so that the AD has
the necessary background information about the proposal. When the AD
has the write-up he or she can insert the document into the data
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
tracker and set its parameters correctly (e.g., the area, intended
status and ballot information).
If for some reason the authors cannot identify the most relevant Area
Director, they should contact to the General Area Director first.
This replaces the previous practice of writing to the IESG as a
whole.
Messages sent to iesg-secretary@ietf.org prompt the secretariat to
send a response that suggests the authors should follow the
appropriate submission procedure for their desired method, such as
finding an AD to sponsor an individual submission. The response can
also suggest that the authors should also consider the normal IETF
publication path through an existing working group, or consider
proposing a BoF at a future IETF meeting. An example note is shown
in Appendix B.
Finally, authors who consider making either an individual submission
through the IETF or an independent submission via the RFC Editor
should be aware that some documents either have to be from the IETF
or would benefit from being from the IETF. For instance, the
document may request an IANA allocation from a space that has a
Standards Action IANA rule (see RFC 2434 [RFC2434]). Such actions
can not come from independent submissions. For a discussion of when
a document can not be processed as an independent submission, see RFC
3932 [RFC3932].
One possibility for such documents is to process them as AD Sponsored
submissions. Other alternatives include finding or creating a
suitable WG to process the document or abandoning the document
altogether. The authors are responsible for the decision to proceed
with a particular approach among the set of allowed options. The
authors are also responsible for the effort of proposing a Birds-of-
a-Feather (BoF) session, convincing the IESG or one of the ADs that
the document needs to be sponsored, etc.
4. Processing Rules
AD Sponsored documents to Standards Track require review in the IETF,
IETF Last Call, and IESG approval. AD Sponsored documents to
Experimental/Informational require some form of review in the IETF
and IESG approval. While RFC 2026 does not require the latter type
of documents to go through an IETF Last Call, this note suggests that
it is always performed. It is needed to ensure adequate review and
transparency in a situation where the pending publication of the
document may not be known by any Working Group or the IETF community
at large.
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
As RFC 2026 states, when a proposed standards action comes from
outside Working Groups, the IETF Last Call period is at least four
weeks. If the IESG believes that the community interest would be
served by allowing more time for comment, it may decide on a longer
Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a current Last-Call
period.
The exact nature of the review within the IETF is not specified, but
it is expected that documents be posted for review in the relevant WG
mailing lists. Often no relevant mailing list exists, in which case
area-specific or IETF main discussion list can be used. Individual
reviewers, review teams, and review boards for specific topics can
also be used. If no sufficient review has been obtained, the AD
should solicit it explicitly.
Note that discussing topics outside the charter of a WG can cause
loss of focus in a WG, if a WG list is chosen for discussion. This
should be considered when seeking review and when deciding to adopt
documents for sponsoring. On the other hand, work closely related to
a WG but strictly outside its charter should always be brought to the
WG's attention during review.
Sponsored submissions are treated in the same manner with other
submissions in the actual IESG evaluation process. Existing discuss,
appeal, recusing, etc. rules apply also to sponsored submissions.
5. Choosing Documents to Sponsor
This section provides some guidelines for the use of the AD
Sponsoring method. Such guidelines are useful when authors contact
the AD and suggest that their document be sponsored. The rules are
also useful in controlling the load on the IESG, and to ensure
fairness. AD Sponsored documents are the only way to publish
Standards Track documents outside WGs. IETF documents may also have
a higher priority at the RFC Editor processing queue than independent
submissions.
When considering the choice between a sponsored document and an RFC
Editor submission, the RFC 3932 rules play a role [RFC3932]. If it
is likely that the document would generate a 3 (harmful to IETF
work), 4 (violates IETF procedures) or 5 (extension requires IETF
review) response based on RFC 3932 it is not appropriate for an
independent submission. Sometimes such documents are suitable
candidates for being sponsored, however. It would be useful to add,
say, IANA rules or IPv6 considerations to an old specification that
did not have them and for which no WG can be found. Such additions
to standards track RFCs need to be on the standards track themselves,
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
preventing the use of independent submissions.
In general, the decision to sponsor a document involves AD
discretion. It is necessary for the AD to be willing to spend effort
on the document. The following considerations should be applied:
Document Track
Documents that need to be on the Standards Track can only be
published via WGs or the AD Sponsored method.
Documents that fall under this class should either be handled by
the IETF in some manner or be dropped. This ultimate decision
depends on, among other things, on the value of the document's
contribution and whether it fits within the mission of the IETF.
The AD should also consider whether the normal IETF WG/BoF process
should be employed instead. Some situations where this is
impractical have been noted in Section 6.
IANA Rules
Documents that request "IETF Consensus" or "Standards Action" IANA
allocations also need to be WG submissions or AD Sponsored
documents.
On the other, documents intended to satisfy "Specification
required" could be processed as independent submissions.
Benefit from IETF Review
All AD sponsored documents go through IETF Last Call, and also
receive additional review from the sponsoring AD, the IESG, and
may also be reviewed by solicited experts and WGs.
Does the document need such IETF-wide review, or is RFC Editor's
Independent Submission Review (ISR) sufficient? For instance, the
AD can decide that while a particular document could be an
independent submission, the added review would be useful and would
benefit the community.
As an example, the AD may expect that a particular protocol will
be widely deployed, and that providing additional IETF review
makes the protocol more likely to be useful for the community and
less likely to cause problems.
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
Availability of Reviewer Resources
Are there persons that can help with the review of the document
during, for instance, the IETF Last Call? Is there a risk that
such persons become distracted from their chartered work at the
IETF because of the extra reviews being requested?
Fairness
ADs should be fair in choosing the documents that they decide to
sponsor. For instance, they should not give priority in accepting
or processing documents on company or personal criteria; the
content of the document and its relevance to the Internet
community should be the guiding factor.
Where an AD is one of the authors or significant contributors in a
document, he or she can not be the sponsoring AD.
Relevance
The above process issues need to be considered together with the
relevance the document has for the Internet community. Does it
solve an important problem? Does it describe an issue that
affects a significant number of users in the Internet? Does it
create an interface or convention where widespread
interoperability would be necessary?
For instance, a document that describes a serious vulnerability or
an architectural issue in protocols in the AD's area is a good
candidate for being sponsored. Clarifications and small updates
of protocols in the AD's area are also good candidates when no
suitable working working group exists, and the scale of the change
does not warrant the creation of one.
A document specifying a particular vendor's proprietary protocol
is typically more suitable as an independent submission than being
sponsored by an AD. A document specifying an alternate approach
to an existing Standards Track solution is typically not a likely
candidate either. But this is a judgment call. For instance, if
there is general agreement in a WG for publishing a "road not
followed" document for the record, but the WG itself considers it
out of scope, AD sponsoring might be appropriate.
Quality
As with relevance, the quality of the document and the expected
outcome of the IETF review process affect the decision. In
general, the AD should only sponsor documents that he or she
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
believes in; the decision to sponsor should only be taken after at
least as detailed review as the AD performs for regular WG
submissions.
As with BoFs, it is possible that the IETF community is divided or
unable to agree on a proposal, even if the proposal itself is of
high quality and relevant. The AD should consider the likelihood
of achieving consensus in IETF review, if relevant for the type of
document in question.
History
Sometimes the IETF, IESG, and the WG has more information about
the history of the document than the RFC Editor. This is the case
with the "road not followed" documents mentioned above as well as
with other documents recently seriously considered in the IETF.
If the publication of these documents is appropriate, they are
likely more suitable as individual submissions than as independent
submissions.
ADs can always decline to sponsor a given document.
It may take a while to find the right AD. Sometimes the contacted AD
may suggest that the document fits better in another AD's area of
expertise. Or the author may realize that a more suitable AD exists.
Legitimate search for the right AD should not be confused with
authors going through several ADs trying to find one that will
sponsor their document. For BOF requests, this practice has been
termed "AD shopping."
To identify cases of AD shopping, it is recommended that ADs send a
brief note to the IESG when they have turned down a sponsoring
request, accompanied by an indication if this was due to unsuitable
topic for the AD or some other reason. This allows the other ADs to
recognize that they are being asked for the same document again.
This should not necessarily cause the second AD to automatically turn
down the request. However, it is recommended that he or she query
the ADs that have turned down sponsorship in the past and incorporate
this information into their own decision.
6. Discussion
AD Sponsored submissions represent a significant workload to the
IESG. Reasons for the popularity of these submissions include the
interest of the ADs to progress work in their fields, the difference
in time-to-RFC-publication IETF documents enjoy over independent
submissions, the ability to avoid the IESG notes that independent
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
submissions get, and the wider review IETF documents get.
Improvements in the efficiency of the RFC Editor processing are
likely to increase the popularity of the independent submissions,
which represent a smaller load for the IESG. Similarly, ongoing work
[I-D.klensin-rfc-independent] may change the tone of the IESG notes.
However, the speed of the independent submissions channel depends to
a large extent on its review stage, and it has generally been easier
to find reviewers for IETF documents.
In any case, the IESG can handle some amount of sponsored documents.
The system is self-regulating in the sense that if the IESG becomes
too busy, the ADs are less likely to adopt sponsored documents; there
is no requirement for them to sponsor any submissions.
The interesting question is why there was no WG to deal with the
issue in the proposal, if it is so important and useful. One reason
for this can be that our BoF process tends works better for large
efforts than small. The process also favors focused efforts which
may make it hard to report issues that cross multiple WGs or areas.
Running a BoF and creating a WG takes time and requires a significant
number of persons to be involved in the effort. Some of the
situations where this can be problematic include:
o Corrections and small updates of existing RFCs when the WG that
created the original RFCs no longer exists.
o Draft Standard revisions of Proposed Standard RFCs when the WG no
longer exists.
o IANA considerations updates for old protocol specifications to
bring them up to today's requirements. Many old protocol
specifications had no IANA considerations, for instance.
o Architectural issues that cross multiple WGs or areas, but are not
being handled currently by the IAB.
o Registration of values and formats in frameworks, such as media
type registrations.
Some areas employ area-specific WGs that can be used to process some
of these. For instance, TSVWG in the Transport area produces
documents as a real WG, resulting in less need for AD sponsoring.
Other areas such as Internet and Security have area-specific
discussion forums that do not act like WGs. The Routing area employs
both models with their RTGAREA group for discussion and RTGWG for WG-
like operation for "catchall" documents. In the Operations and
Management Area the MIB Doctors team discusses procedural and
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
technical issues, reviews documents, and sometimes issues documents
related to the MIB quality review process.
7. Summary of Changes to Existing Procedures
The "talk to the appropriate AD" and "submit via RFC Editor"
approaches are promoted over submitting documents via the
secretariat. This allows the ADs to discuss the appropriate
submission method with the authors, and does not require the
secretariat to think about policy issues such as whether a document
is worthwhile for being sponsored.
Submissions sent to iesg@ietf.org are not considered.
New text is adopted for the secretariat's response to submissions.
It should also be noted that Section 4.2.3 of RFC 2026 states "Unless
they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents intended
to be published with Experimental or Informational status should be
submitted directly to the RFC Editor." This has not been operational
practice for some time, however. A number of Informational and
Experimental documents have been submitted as AD Sponsored documents.
The rationale behind this is the wider review that can be achieved,
but this is one area where current procedures have deviated from RFC
2026. However, RFC 2026 is not technically violated, since in these
cases the IESG serves as the submitter to the RFC Editor in place of
the author.
8. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations beyond those normally involved
in the IETF processing of proposals for new RFCs.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
[I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding]
Levkowetz, H., "Document Shepherding From Working Group
Last Call to IESG Approval",
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07 (work in
progress), June 2006.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
[I-D.iab-rfc-editor]
Daigle, L., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",
draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 (work in progress), July 2006.
[I-D.klensin-rfc-independent]
Klensin, J., "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor",
draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02 (work in progress),
May 2006.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This note has been prepared as a result of discussions in the IESG.
The members of the IESG at the time this was written were:
Bill Fenner
Brian Carpenter
Cullen Jennings
Dan Romascanu
David Kessens
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
Jari Arkko
Jon Peterson
Lars Eggert
Lisa Dusseault
Magnus Westerlund
Mark Townsley
Ross Callon
Russ Housley
Sam Hartman
Ted Hardie
In addition, the editor would like to thank Leslie Daigle, John
Klensin, and Pekka Savola for input.
Appendix B. Secretariat Response to Submissions
Individual submission requests sent to iesg-secretary@ietf.org prompt
the secretariat to send a response suggesting an alternative
submission process. Example response note is shown below.
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
"We cannot process your request. Please make an independent
submission through the RFC Editor, or find an IETF Area Director
to sponsor your draft as an individual submission to the
IETF. Also, please consider the normal IETF publication path
through an existing working group, or consider proposing a BoF at
a future IETF meeting.
Please see RFC 3932 for guidance on which documents may be
suitable as independent submission through the RFC Editor. If you
choose this option, please send your publication request to
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
If you wish to seek Area Director sponsorship for an
individual submission, the best solution is to contact the
most relevant Area Director directly, with an explanation of
why the draft is appropriate for IETF publication. The Area
Director is also the best source of advice about whether an
existing WG, or a BoF, may be applicable. The Area Directors
and WGs are listed at:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html
If for some reason you cannot identify the most relevant Area
Director, please talk to the General Area Director first.
The IETF Secretariat"
Appendix C. PROTO Write-Up
A write-up should accompany any request for sponsoring. This
write-up should follow the the Document Shepherd Write-up template
given in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding].
However, as there is no working group, questions that relate to the
the working group need to be interpreted in the context of the
interested community instead. It is assumed that an interested
community exists in all cases, and that individual submissions are
not prepared in complete isolation.
In addition, under item 1.k the authors should indicate if the
document been considered in any existing or past WG, and if yes,
describe why the work was not adopted as a work item there.
The initial template of the edited write-up is included below for
ease of copying pasting the questions elsewhere. But changes are
expected over time. Any future changes to
[I-D.ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding] need to be applied, for
instance. The latest version of this template is available from the
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
IESG section of the IETF web site.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.
(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
for them [RFC3967].
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an
indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the discussion in the interested
community that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document
considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special
mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document
had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In
the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request
posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?
The write-up is entered into the ID Tracker in the "Comment" field.
Author's Address
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AD Sponsoring Guidelines March 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Arkko (Editor) Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 17]
