IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
RFC 1603
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(March 1994; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 2418
Updated by RFC 1871
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Erik Huizer , Dave Crocker | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 1603 (Informational) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group E. Huizer
Request for Comments: 1603 SURFnet bv
Category: Informational D. Crocker
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
March 1994
IETF Working Group
Guidelines and Procedures
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
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 describes the formal
relationship between IETF participants WG and the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG). The basic duties of IETF
participants, including WG Chair and IESG Area Directors are defined.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................. 2
1.1. IETF approach to standardization........................ 3
1.2. Acknowledgments......................................... 4
2. WORKING GROUP (WG) FORMATION.............................. 5
2.1. Criteria for formation.................................. 5
2.2. Charter................................................. 6
2.3. Charter review & approval............................... 9
2.4. Birds of a feather (BOF)................................ 9
3. WORKING GROUP OPERATION................................... 11
3.1. Session planning........................................ 11
3.2. Session venue........................................... 12
3.3. Session management...................................... 14
3.4. Contention and appeals overview......................... 15
4. WORKING GROUP TERMINATION................................. 16
5. STAFF ROLES............................................... 17
5.1. WG Chair................................................ 17
5.2. WG Editor/Secretary..................................... 19
5.3. WG Facilitator.......................................... 19
5.4. Design teams............................................ 19
Huizer & Crocker [Page 1]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
5.5. Area Consultant......................................... 19
5.6. Area Director........................................... 20
5.7. Area Directorate........................................ 21
6. WORKING GROUP DOCUMENTS................................... 21
6.1. Session documents....................................... 21
6.2. IETF meeting document archive........................... 21
6.3. Internet-Drafts (I-D)................................... 23
6.4. Request For Comments (RFC).............................. 24
6.5. Submission of documents................................. 24
6.6. Review of documents..................................... 25
7. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS................................... 26
8. REFERENCES................................................ 26
9. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES........................................ 27
APPENDIX: SAMPLE WORKING GROUP CHARTER........................ 28
1. INTRODUCTION
This document defines guidelines and procedures for Internet
Engineering Task Force working groups. The Internet is a loosely-
organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected
networks; it supports host-to-host communication through voluntary
adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet
Standards, a collection of which are commonly known as "the TCP/IP
protocol suite". The Internet Standards Process is defined in [1].
Development and review of potential Internet Standards from all
sources is conducted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
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 IETF is managed by its Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG) whose membership includes an IETF
Chair, responsible for oversight of general IETF operations, and Area
Directors, each of whom is responsible for a set of IETF activities
and working groups. The IETF Executive Director and IESG Secretary
are ex-officio participants, as are the IAB Chair and a designated
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) member. At present there are 10
areas, though the number and purview of areas changes over time:
User Services (USV)
Applications (APP)
Service Applications (SAP)
Transport Services (TSV)
Internet (INT)
Routing (RTG)
Network Management (MGT)
Operational Requirements (OPS)
Security (SEC)
Standards & Processes (STD)
Huizer & Crocker [Page 2]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Most areas have an advisory group or directorate. The specific name
and the details of the role for each group differs from area to area,
but the primary intent is that the group assist the Area Director,
e.g., with the review of specifications produced in the area. An
advisory group is formed by an Area Director (AD) and comprises
experienced members of the IETF and technical community represented
by the area. A small IETF Secretariat provides staff and
administrative support for the operation of the IETF.
The primary activities of the IETF are performed by committees known
as working groups. There are currently more than 60 of these.
Working groups tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by
completion of a specific task, although there are exceptions.
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. The document uses: "shall", "will",
"must" and "is required" where it describes steps in the process that
are essential, and uses: "suggested", "should" and "may" are where
guidelines are described that are not essential, but are strongly
recommended to help smooth WG operation.
1.1. IETF approach to standardization
The reader is encouraged to study The Internet Standards Process [1].
Familiarity with this document is essential for a complete
understanding of the philosophy, procedures and guidelines described
in this document.
The goals of the process are summarized in [1]:
"In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is
stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has
multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations
with operational experience, enjoys significant public
support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of
the Internet.
...
Huizer & Crocker [Page 3]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
"In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of
development and several iterations of review by the Internet
community and perhaps revision based upon experience, is
adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body (see below),
and is published.
"In practice, the process is somewhat more complicated, due
to (1) the number and type of possible sources for
specifications; (2) the need to prepare and revise a
specification in a manner that preserves the interests of
all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of
establishing widespread community agreement on its technical
content; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the utility of
a particular specification for the Internet community.
...
"These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and
adopting generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate
for Internet standardization is implemented and tested for
correct operation and interoperability by multiple,
independent parties, and utilized in increasingly demanding
environments, before it can be adopted as an Internet
Standard."
The IETF standardization process has been marked by informality. As
the community of participation has grown it has become necessary to
document procedures, while continuing to avoid unnecessary
bureaucracy. This goals of this balancing act are summarized in [1]
as:
"The procedures that are described here provide a great deal
of flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances
that occur in the Internet standardization process.
Experience has shown this flexibility to be vital in
achieving the following goals for Internet standardization:
* high quality,
* prior implementation and testing,
* openness and fairness, and
* timeliness."
1.2. Acknowledgments
Much of this document is due to the copy-and-paste function of a word
processor. Several passages have been taken from the documents cited
in the reference section. The POISED WG provided discussion and
comments. Three people deserve special mention, as especially large
chunks of their documents have been integrated into this one: Vint
Huizer & Crocker [Page 4]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Cerf [7] from whom we borrowed the description of the IETF; and Greg
Vaudreuil and Steve Coya who provided several paragraphs. Also, John
Stewart and Steve Crocker did a truly stellar job of proof-reading.
However, all the errors you'll find are probably ours.
2. WORKING GROUP (WG) FORMATION
IETF working groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development
of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended as
standards or recommendations. A working group may be established at
the initiative of an Area Director (AD) 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
appropriate IETF Area Director under whose direction the working
group would fall and must proceed through the formal steps detailed
in this section.
A working group is typically created to address a specific problem or
produce a deliverable (a guideline, standards specification, etc.)
and is expected to be short-lived in nature. Upon completion of its
goals and achievement of its objectives, the working group as a unit
is terminated. Alternatively at the discretion of the IESG, Area
Director, the WG Chair and the WG participants, the objectives or
assignment of the working group may be extended by enhancing or
modifying the working group's charter.
2.1. Criteria for formation
When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working group,
the Area Director and the IESG will consider several issues:
- Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear
and relevant for the Internet community?
- Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and
achievable within the time frame specified by the
milestones?
- What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the
level of attention 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.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 5]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
- Is there sufficient interest and expertise in the working
group's topic with at least several 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 contribution to the document
text. IETF experience suggests that these roles typically
cannot all be handled by one person; four or five active
participants are typically required.
- 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.
Considering the above criteria, the Area Director 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, although final approval is made by the
IESG and all charters are reviewed by 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 aspects of 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, the Area Director and the IESG Secretary
are satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the basis
for forming a working group. The AD may require an initial draft of a
charter to be available prior to holding an exploratory Birds of a
Feather (BOF) meeting, as described below.
Charters may be renegotiated periodically to reflect the current
status, organization or goals of the working group. Hence, a charter
is a contract between the IETF and the working group which is
committing to meet explicit milestones and delivering concrete
"products".
Huizer & Crocker [Page 6]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Specifically, each charter consists of 6 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 two Chair(s) to perform
the administrative functions of the group. The email
address(es) of the Chair(s) shall be included.
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.
Mailing list
It is required that an IETF working group have a general
Internet mailing list. Most of the work of an IETF working
group will be conducted that.
The charter shall include:
The address to which a participant sends a
subscription request and the procedures to follow when
subscribing,
The address to which a participant sends submissions
and special procedures, if any, and
The location of the mailing list archive, if any.
A message archive should be maintained in a public place
which can be accessed via FTP. The ability to retrieve from
the archive via electronic mail requests also is
recommended. Additionally, the address:
ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us
shall be included on the mailing list.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 7]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
NOTE: It is strongly suggested that the mailing list be on
a host directly connected to the IP Internet to facilitate
use of the SMTP expansion command (EXPN) and to allow mail
archive access via FTP, gopher and the like in keeping with
the general IETF rule for openness. If this is not possible,
the message archive and membership of the list must be made
available to those who request it by sending a message to
the list-request alias.
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 will
frequently be used as an overview of the working group's effort.
The terms "they", "them" and "their" are used in this document as
third-person singular pronouns.
To facilitate evaluation of the intended work and to provide
on-going guidance to the working group, the charter shall
describe the problem being solved and shall discuss
objectives and expected impact with respect to:
- Architecture
- Operations
- Security
- Network management
- Transition (where applicable)
Goals and milestones
The working group charter must establish a timetable for
work. 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. Updated milestones are re-negotiated
with the Area Director and the IESG, as needed, and then are
submitted to the IESG Secretary:
Huizer & Crocker [Page 8]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
IESG-secretary@cnri.reston.va.us
An example of a WG charter is in Appendix A.
2.3. Charter review & approval
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 an Area Consultant from among the ranks
of senior IETF participants. (Area Consultants are described in the
section of Staff Roles.) At the discretion of the AD, 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 AD deems
appropriate) has approved the working group charter, the charter is
submitted for review by the IAB and approval by the Internet
Engineering Steering Group using the criteria described previously.
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) will review the charter of the
proposed WG to determine the relationship of the proposed work to the
overall architecture of the Internet Protocol Suite.
The approved charter is submitted to the IESG Secretary who records
and enters the information into the IETF tracking database and
returns the charter in a form formatted by the database. The working
group is announced to the IETF mailing list by the IESG Secretary.
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.
Alternatively, 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 the
relevant Area Director. 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.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 9]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
The AD may require the conduct of email discussion, 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 AD may require that a BOF be held,
prior to establishing a working group, and the AD may require that
there be a draft of the WG charter prior to holding a BOF.
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;
- 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.
There is an increasing demand for BOF sessions at IETF meetings.
Therefore the following rules apply for BOFs:
- All BOFs must have the approval of the appropriate Area
Director. The Secretariat will NOT schedule or allocate time
slots without the explicit approval of the Area Director.
- The purpose of a BOF is to conduct a single, brief
discussion or to ascertain interest and establish goals for
a working group. All BOF organizers are required to submit a
brief written report of what transpired during the BOF
session together with a roster of attendees to the IESG
Secretary for inclusion in the Proceedings.
- A BOF may be held only once (ONE slot at one IETF Plenary
meeting).
- Under unusual circumstances an Area Director may, at their
discretion, allow a BOF to meet for a second time. Typically
(though not a requirement) this is to develop a charter to
be submitted to the IESG.
- BOFs are not permitted to meet three times.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 10]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
- A BOF may be held for single-event discussion, or may pursue
creation of normal IETF working groups for on-going
interactions and discussions. When the request for a BOF
comes from a formally-constituted group, rather than from an
individual, the rules governing the handling of the request
are the same as for all other BOFs and working groups.
- When necessary, WGs will be given priority for meeting space
over BOFs.
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".
A number of procedural questions and issues will arise over time, and
it is the function of the Working Group Chair 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.
3.1. Session planning
For coordinated, structured WG interactions, the Chair must publish a
draft agenda well in advance of the actual session. The agenda needs
to 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.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 11]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Publication shall include sending a copy to the working group mailing
list and to the IETF-Announce list. Notices for the IETF-Announce
list should be sent to:
ietf-announce-post@cnri.reston.va.us
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
trimester IETF Plenary events. 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@cnri.reston.va.us
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
a scarce resource at IETF meetings, so placing requests early will
Huizer & Crocker [Page 12]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
facilitate schedule coordination for WGs requiring the same set of
experts.
The application for a WG session at an IETF meeting shall be made to
the IETF Secretariat. Alternatively some Area Directors may want to
coordinate WG sessions in their area and request that time slots be
coordinated through them. After receiving all requests for time
slots by WGs in the area, the Area Director(s) form a draft session-
agenda for their area, which is then sent to the WG chairs of the
area. After approval it will be sent to the IETF Secretariat.
An application must contain:
- 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 must not be scheduled for the same time
slot(s); and
- Individuals whose attendance is desired.
The Secretariat allots time slots on the basis of the session-agenda
made by the Area Director(s). If the proposed session- agenda for an
area does not fit into the IETF meeting-agenda, the IETF Secretariat
will adjust it to fit, after consulting the Area Director(s) and the
relevant chairs. The Secretariat will then form a draft session-
agenda and distribute it among the Working Group Chairs for final
approval.
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.
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.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 13]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
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.
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 balloting, humming, or any other means
on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).
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 direct a discussion 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;
Huizer & Crocker [Page 14]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Minor
The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
been 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 overview
In the course of group design processes, strife happens. Strife and
contention are particularly likely when working groups comprise many
constituencies. On the other hand differences in view are vital to
the success of the IETF and healthy debate is encouraged. Sometimes
debates degenerate into something akin to warfare. For these
circumstances, the IETF has an extensive review and appeals process.
Formal procedures for requesting review and conducting appeals are
documented in The Internet Standards Process [1]. A brief summary is
provided, here.
In fact the IETF approach to reviews and appeals is quite simple:
When an IETF participant feels that matters have not been conducted
properly, they should state their concern to a member of IETF
management. In other words, the process relies upon those who have
concerns raising them. If the result is not satisfactory, there are
several levels of appeal available, to ensure that review is possible
by a number of people uninvolved in the matter in question.
Reviews and appeals step through four levels, each in turn:
WG Chair
An appeal must begin with the management closest to the
operation of the working group, even if the concern applies
to their own handling of working group process.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 15]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Area
If discussion and review with the WG Chair do not produce a
satisfactory result, the complainant may bring their concern
to the cognizant Area Director.
IESG
If a concerned party is not satisfied with the results of
the area-level review, then they may bring the matter to the
IESG Chair and the Area Director for Standards & Processes.
The IESG Chair and the Standards & Processes AD will bring
the issue before the full IESG for an additional review and
will report the resolution back to the parties.
IAB
The IAB provides a final opportunity to appeal the results
of previous reviews. If a concerned party does not accept
the outcome of the IESG review, then they may take their
concern to the IAB, by contacting the IAB Chair.
Concerns entail either a disagreement with technical decisions by the
working group or with the process by which working group business has
been conducted. Technical disagreements may be about specific
details or about basic approach. When an issue pertains to
preference, it should be resolved within the working group. When a
matter pertains to the technical adequacy of a decision, review is
encouraged whenever the perceived deficiency is noted. For matters
having to do with preference, working group rough consensus will
dominate.
When a matter pertains to working group process, it is important that
those with a concern be clear about the manner in which the process
was not open or fair and that they be willing to discuss the issue
openly and directly. In turn, the IETF management will make every
effort to understand how the process was conducted, what deficiencies
were present (if any) and how the matter should be corrected. The
IETF functions on the good will and mutual respect of its
participants; continued success requires continued attention to
working group process.
4. WORKING GROUP TERMINATION
Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task.
After that task is 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
Huizer & Crocker [Page 16]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
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, the group, in
consultation with its Area Director can either:
1. Recharter to refocus on a smaller task,
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.
5. 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.
5.1. 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. 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. Often, they also are
part of the design team, described below.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 17]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
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 agenda and
deliverables. These are structured as true meetings,
conducted over the course of several days (to allow
participation across the Internet.) Participants are
expected to allocate time to the meeting, usually in the
range of 1-2 hours per day of the "meeting".
Organize, prepare and chair face-to-face & on-line formal sessions
The Chair should plan and announce sessions well in advance.
(See section on Session Planning for exact procedures.)
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 the section on Session Documents for detailed
procedures.
Immediately after a session, the WG Chair must immediately
provide the Area Director with a very short report
(approximately one paragraph, via email) on the session.
This is used in an Area Report as presented in the
Proceedings of each IETF meeting.
Distribute the work
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 will make sure that authors of WG documents
incorporate changes as discussed by the WG. See the section
on Session Documents for details procedures.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 18]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Document publication
The Chair and/or Secretary 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.
5.2. WG Editor/Secretary
Taking minutes and editing working group documents often is performed
by a specifically-designated participant or set of participants. In
this role, the Editor's job is to record WG decisions, rather than to
perform basic specification.
5.3. 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.
5.4. Design teams
The majority of the detailed specification effort within a working
group may be done by self-selecting sub-groups, called design teams,
with the (implicit or explicit) approval of the working group. The
team may hold closed sessions for conducting portions of the
specification effort. In some cases design teams are necessary to
make forward progress when preparing a document. All work conducted
by a design team must be available for review by all working group
participants and the design team must be responsive to the direction
of the working group's consensus.
5.5. Area Consultant
At the discretion of the AD, a Consultant may be assigned to a
working group. Consultants are senior participants in the IETF
community. They have technical background appropriate to the WG and
experience in Internet architecture and IETF process.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 19]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
5.6. 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. This very general description encompasses at the very least
these detailed tasks related to working groups:
Area planning
The Area Director determines activities appropriate to the
area. This may include initiating working groups directly,
rather than waiting for proposals from IETF participants.
Coordination of WGs
The Area Director coordinates the work done by the various
WGs within (and sometimes even outside) the relevant area.
IETF Meeting Schedule
The Director tries to coordinate sessions in such a way that
experts can attend the relevant sessions with a minimum of
overlap and gaps between sessions. (See section on WG
sessions for details.)
Reporting
The Area Director reports to the IETF on progress in the
area.
Reviewing
The Area Director may appoint independent reviewers prior to
document approval. The Area Director tracks the progress of
documents from the area through the IESG review process, and
report back on this to the WG Chair(s).
Progress tracking
The Area Director tracks and manages the progress of the
various WGs with the aid of a regular status report on
documents and milestones that is generated by the IESG
Secretary. The Area Director forwards this report to the WG
chairs. This in turn helps the chairs to manage their WGs.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 20]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
5.7. Area Directorate
An area directorate consists of senior members of the technical
community and are appointed by the Area Director who then tasks them
with technical oversight and review of specific area activities. An
Area Director chairs the directorate. At the request of the AD,
directorate members conduct specification reviews and may be assigned
as Area Consultants, to provide architectural assistance.
6. WORKING GROUP DOCUMENTS
6.1. Session documents
All relevant documents for a session (including the final agenda)
should be published and available at least two weeks before a session
starts.
It is strongly suggested that the WG Chair make sure that an
anonymous FTP directory be available for the upcoming session. All
relevant documents (including the final agenda and the minutes of the
last session) should be placed in this directory. This has the
advantage that all participants can FTP all files in this directory
and thus make sure they have all relevant documents. Also, it will be
helpful to provide electronic mail-based retrieval for those
documents.
6.2. IETF meeting document archive
In preparing for an IETF meeting it is helpful to have ready access
to all documents that are being reviewed. While documents usually are
placed in the internet-drafts Internet Repository or in the
respective working group archives or just published in some mail-
lists, there are just too many things to browse or read through.
Also, many documents are modified immediately before a meeting.
The InterNIC Directory and Database Services provides a current-
ietf-docs archive to enable people to get all documents that are
relevant for the up-coming IETF meeting. This document database will
be removed two weeks after the IETF meeting.
The completeness of this archive depends on the authors and working
group chairs submitting the documents. Each WG Chair is requested to
submit the agenda to this archive.
Structure of the archive:
On ds.internic.net documents will be stored under the appropriate
working group name under the appropriate area name in the directory:
Huizer & Crocker [Page 21]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
/pub/current-ietf-docs
Each area will also have a directory called bof where a document to
be discussed in a BOF meeting will be placed. At the area level a
directory called plenary will be created to hold documents or
presentation material related to a plenary session. Any filename
conflicts will be resolved by the InterNIC's administrator and the
submitter will be informed via electronic mail. Example:
/pub/current-ietf-docs/app/osids
/pub/current-ietf-docs/int/sip
Access via anonymous FTP:
Anonymous FTP to ds.internic.net and change directory to
/pub/current-ietf-docs/
and browse and get the document of interest.
Access via gopher:
Connect to gopher.internic.net and select the menu item:
4. InterNIC Directory and Database Services (AT&T)/
and then the menu item:
3. Documents to be reviewed at the *** IETF
One may use the public-access gopher client by:
telnet gopher.internic.net
Submission of documents via anonymous FTP:
FTP to ds.internic.net and login as anonymous. Change directory to:
/incoming/current-ietf-docs
Put the document using the following filename convention,
<area>.<wgname>.<filename>
e.g.:
plenary.mondayVGs.ps
app.osids.agenda
app.osids.internic-talk-VGs.ps
Huizer & Crocker [Page 22]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
Note that the names of areas and working groups are their official
short-form acronyms,
Submission of documents via electronic mail:
Send mail to
admin@ds.internic.net
with the following subject line:
IETF - <area>.<wgname>.<filename>
e.g.:
IETF - app.osids.agenda
NOTE: Instead of sending a fresh copy of an already available
document, you may ask the InterNIC's administrators to create a link
to an existing internet-draft/RFC/ID
NOTE: If you do not remember your area or working group acronym get
the file /ftp/ietf/1wg-summary.txt from ds.internic.net via anonymous
FTP.
6.3. Internet-Drafts (I-D)
The Internet-Drafts directory is provided to working groups as a
resource for posting and disseminating early 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@cnri.reston.va.us
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;
- The I-D filename; and
Huizer & Crocker [Page 23]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
- 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.
6.4. Request For Comments (RFC)
The work of an IETF working group usually results in publication of
one or more documents, as part of the Request For Comments (RFCs) [2]
series. This series is the archival publication record for the
Internet community. A document can be written by an individual in a
working group, by a group as a whole with a designated Editor, or by
others not involved with the IETF. The designated author need not be
the group Chair(s).
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.
For a description on the various categories of RFCs the reader is
referred to [1, 4, 5, 6].
6.5. Submission of documents
When a WG decides that a document is ready for publication, the
following must be done:
- The version of the relevant document as approved by the WG
must be in the Internet-Drafts directory;
- The relevant document must be formatted according to RFC
rules [2].
- The WG Chair sends email to the relevant Area Director, with
a copy to the IESG Secretary. The mail should contain the
reference to the document, and the request that it be
progressed as an Informational, Experimental, Prototype or
standards-track (Proposed, Draft or Internet Standard) RFC.
The IESG Secretary will acknowledge receipt of the email. Unless
returned to the WG for further development, progressing of the
Huizer & Crocker [Page 24]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
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 Editor.
6.6. Review of documents
Usually in case of a submission intended as an Informational or
Experimental RFC minimal review is necessary. However, if the WG or
the RFC Editor thinks that an extensive review is appropriate, the
Area Director may be asked to conduct one. This review may either be
done by the AD and other IESG participants or the IESG may ask for an
independent review (e.g., by someone not part of the WG in question)
from the Area Directorate or elsewhere.
A review will lead to one of three possible conclusions:
1. The document is accepted as is.
This fact will be announced by the IESG Secretary to the
IETF mailing list and to the RFC Editor. Publication is then
further handled between the RFC Editor and the author(s).
2. Changes regarding content are suggested to the author(s)/WG.
Suggestions must be clear and direct, so as to facilitate
working group and author correction of the specification.
Once the author(s)/WG have made these changes or have
explained to the satisfaction of the reviewers why the
changes are not necessary, the document will be accepted for
publication as under point 1, above.
3. The document is rejected.
This will need strong and thorough arguments from the
reviewers. The whole IETF and working group process is
structured such that this alternative is not likely to arise
for documents coming from a working group. After all, the
intentions of the document will already have been described
in the WG charter, and reviewed at the start of the WG.
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 procedural complaints is
described in the section on Contention and Appeal.
Before the IESG makes a final decision on a standards-track document,
the IESG Secretary will issue a "Last Call" to the IETF mailing list.
This Last Call will announce the intention of the IESG to consider
Huizer & Crocker [Page 25]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
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 cannot serve as a more general, in-depth review.
7. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering Steering
Group, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC 1602,
IAB, IESG, March 1994.
[2] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.
[3] Malkin, G., and J. Reynolds, "F.Y.I. on F.Y.I. - Introduction to
the F.Y.I. Notes", RFC 1150, Proteon, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, March 1990.
[4] Postel, J., Editor, "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.
[5] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD
1, RFC 1600, IAB, March 1994.
[6] Cerf, V., "The Internet Activities Board", RFC 1160, NRI, May
1990.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 26]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
9. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES
Erik Huizer
SURFnet bv
P.O. Box 19035
3501 DA Utrecht
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 310290
Fax: +31 30 340903
EMail: Erik.Huizer@SURFnet.nl
Dave Crocker
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
P.O. Box 7311
Mountain View, CA 94039
Phone: +1 415 390 1804
Fax: +1 415 962 8404
EMail: dcrocker@sgi.com
Huizer & Crocker [Page 27]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
APPENDIX: SAMPLE WORKING GROUP CHARTER
Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (mmusic)
Charter
Chair(s):
Eve Schooler <schooler@isi.edu>
Abel Weinrib <abel@bellcore.com>
Transport Area Director(s)
Allison Mankin <mankin@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Mailing lists:
General Discussion:confctrl@isi.edu
To Subscribe: confctrl-request@isi.edu
Archive: venera.isi.edu:~/confctrl/confcrtl.mail
Description of Working Group:
The demand for Internet teleconferencing has arrived, yet an
infrastructure to support this demand is barely in place.
Multimedia session control, defined as the management and
coordination of multiple sessions and their multiple users in
multiple media (e.g., audio, video), is one component of the
infrastructure. The Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
Working Group is chartered to design and specify a protocol to
perform these functions.
The protocol will provide negotiation for session membership,
underlying communication topology and media configuration. In
particular, the protocol will support a user initiating a
multimedia multiparty session with other users ("calling" other
users) over the Internet by allowing a teleconferencing
application on one workstation to explicitly rendezvous with
teleconferencing applications running on remote workstations.
Defining a standard protocol will enable session-level
interoperability between different teleconferencing
implementations.
The focus of the working group is to design a session negotiation
protocol that is tailored to support tightly-controlled
conferences. The MBONE currently carries primarily loosely-
controlled sessions, i.e., sessions with little to no interaction
among members and with no arbitration facility, security, or
coordination of quality-of-service options for time-critical
media. Users may learn of available sessions using the "sd"
utility or other out of band mechanisms (e.g., email). However,
Huizer & Crocker [Page 28]
RFC 1603 IETF Working Group Guidelines March 1994
there is clearly also a need for tightly-controlled sessions that
provide mechanisms for directly contacting other users to
initiate a session and for negotiating conference parameters such
as membership, media encodings and encryption keys. In addition,
these sessions should support renegotiation during a session, for
example to add or delete members or change the media encoding.
It is possible that the protocol will, in the limiting case, also
support loosely-controlled sessions.
The main goal of the working group will be to specify the session
control protocol for use within teleconferencing software over
the Internet. The working group will focus on the aspects of the
session control problem that are well understood, while keeping
an eye on evolving research issues. Toward this end, the working
group has made an inventory of existing conferencing systems and
their session control protocols. The working group will document
the requirements of the existing prototypes as a basis for the
protocol development. The working group will iteratively refine
the protocol based on implementation and operational experience.
Furthermore, the working group will coordinate with other efforts
related to multimedia conferencing, such as directory services
for cataloguing users and conferences, the RTP and RTCP protocols
developed by the Audio/Video Transport Working Group, resource
reservation and management at the network level, and schemes for
multicast address allocation.
Goals and Milestones:
May 93 Hold an on-line working group meeting to discuss
the conference control framework, the relevant
terminology, a functional taxonomy and how
different conversational styles place
requirements on session protocols.
Jun 93 Submit the Conference Session Control Protocol to
the IESG for consideration as an Experimental
Protocol.
Aug 93 Post an Internet-Draft describing the Session
Control Requirements.
Nov 93 Post an Internet-Draft of the Session Control
Protocol.
Mar 94 Submit a revised Internet-Draft based on
implementation experience.
Huizer & Crocker [Page 29]