doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 563 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1396.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1396.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85a2237
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1396.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         S. Crocker
+Request for Comments: 1396             Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
+                                                            January 1993
+
+
+           The Process for Organization of Internet Standards
+                         Working Group (POISED)
+                          Steve Crocker, Chair
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is
+   unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG),
+   starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to the
+   end of 1992.  Necessarily, this synopsis represents my own
+   perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period.  Quite a few
+   people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and specific
+   events.  My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view as
+   possible.
+
+Background and Formation of POISED Working Group
+
+   The POISED WG resulted from two sequences of activity, both
+   intimately related to the growth of the Internet.  During 1991, there
+   was great concern that the IP address space was being depleted and
+   that the routing tables were growing too large.  Some change in the
+   IP addressing and routing mechanisms seemed inevitable, and it became
+   urgent to explore and choose what those changes should be.  The ROAD
+   Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes.
+   The ROAD group returned with a specific recommendation for the short
+   term, but did not reach a conclusion on a long term plan.
+
+   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then formulated a plan
+   of action for further exploration of the issues and forwarded these
+   recommendations to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  In June
+   1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met and
+   considered the IESG's recommendations.  After considering the IESG's
+   recommendations, the IAB felt that additional ideas were also
+   important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP
+   protocol.  The IAB communicated its concerns, and there was immediate
+   controversy along two dimensions.  One dimension was technical: What
+   is the best course for evolving the IP protocol?  How important or
+   useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack?  The other dimension
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+   was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community?
+   Who chooses who makes these decisions?
+
+   As often happens during periods of conflict, communication suffered
+   among the several parties.  The June communication from the IAB was
+   understood by many an IAB decision or, equivalently, a sense of the
+   decisions the IAB would make in the future.  In contrast, many if not
+   all on the IAB felt that they were trying to open up the discussion
+   and their memos were intended as advice and not decisions.  From my
+   perspective, this form of miscommunication was partly due to the
+   extended size of the Internet technical community.  When the
+   community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day
+   to day workings of the technical groups.  With the creation of the
+   IESG and area directorates, there are now two or three layers between
+   a working group and the IAB.
+
+   These matters came to a head during the Internet Engineering Task
+   Force (IETF) meeting in July in Cambridge, MA.  It was made clear
+   that the consideration of changes to the IP protocol remained open.
+   Work on that topic has proceeded and is reported in the appropriate
+   forums.  However, it became clear that it was necessary to examine
+   the decision process and the procedures for populating the IESG and
+   IAB.  With respect to the procedures for selecting IAB and IESG
+   members, the procedures that were in place derived from the creation
+   of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB.
+   These procedures had been developed during the early part of 1992 and
+   had been adopted by the ISOC during its meeting in Kobe in June.
+   Hence, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework for supporting
+   the Internet community, the community was questioning its structure
+   and processes.
+
+   Following the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president,
+   called for the formation of working group to examine the processes
+   and particularly the selection process (Attachment 1).  During
+   August, the working group was formed, I was asked to chair it, and a
+   charter for the WG was formulated (Attachment 2).  (The acronym is
+   due to Erik Huizer and originally stood for The Process for
+   Organization of Internet Standards and Development.  It was shortened
+   to fit into the space available on paper and in the IETF
+   Secretariat's database.)
+
+Deliberations: August through mid-November
+
+   The formation of the POISED WG provided a forum for discussion of
+   process issues.  An estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks all
+   over the world.  Much of this discussion was fragmented or focused on
+   narrow issues.  The salient point that emerged was the need for a
+   well defined process for selecting leaders with explicit community
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+   representation in the selection process.  There was also substantial
+   discussion of the role of the IAB -- to what extent should it make
+   decisions and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? --
+   and the relationship between the IAB and IESG.
+
+   After several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and I attempted to
+   capture the main elements of the discussion by presenting a specific
+   proposal for the reorganization of the entire structure.  The main
+   elements of the proposal were:
+
+      o Retention of the WG and area structure now in place within the
+        IETF.
+
+      o Replacement of the IAB and IESG by two boards, one devoted to
+        technical management and one devoted to oversight of the
+        process.
+
+      o Well defined terms for members of both boards.
+
+      o Selection by committees with input from the community.
+
+   This proposal was technically radical in the sense that it proposed
+   new structures to replace existing structures instead of proposing
+   changes within the existing system.  The proposal focused all further
+   discussion and set the stage for the fall IETF in mid-November in
+   Washington D.C.
+
+November IETF meeting
+
+   By virtue of the intensity of interest throughout the community, the
+   POISED WG was one of the focal points of the IETF meeting.  The
+   schedule included a plenary session Tuesday morning to present the
+   current state of the POISED WG discussions, a formal POISED WG
+   session Tuesday afternoon and an open IESG meeting Thursday evening
+   devoted to the POISED issues.  The formal schedule was only the tip
+   of the iceberg; numerous meetings took place over breakfast, lunch
+   and dinner, in the halls and off in the corners.  The more active
+   participants probably had a dozen or more separate meetings on this
+   over the three most active days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
+
+   Amidst all this frenetic activity, remarkable progress occurred at
+   two key points.  At the Tuesday afternoon POISED WG meeting, Lyman
+   Chapin, IAB chair, Phill Gross, IETF chair and IAB member, and other
+   IAB members proposed changes within the existing IAB/IESG structure
+   which converged with the process management elements of the Malamud-
+   Crocker proposal.  The key point was that all processing of standards
+   actions, including the final decision to advance a specification
+   along the standards track, would be made by the IESG.  This change in
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+   the process shortens the decision cycle and brings it a step closer
+   to the working group.   Convergence on this key point obviated a
+   radical proposal and signaled the building of a consensus on how the
+   standards process should evolve.  Over the next two days attention
+   then turned to the selection process.
+
+   As indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community that
+   the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of the
+   community.  A natural mechanism for doing this is through formal
+   voting.  However, a formal voting process requires formal delineation
+   of who's enfranchised.  One of the strengths of the IETF is there
+   isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition of
+   decision through  votes.  Decisions are generally reached by
+   consensus with mediation by leaders when necessary.
+
+   Various formulas were considered, and the one that emerged was that
+   IAB and IESG members would be selected by a nomination and recruiting
+   committee.  The committee is to consist of seven members from the
+   community, with non-voting representatives from the IAB and IESG and
+   a non-voting chair provided by the ISOC.  The seven members are to be
+   volunteers, with selection by lot if there are more than seven
+   volunteers.  The only requirement for volunteers is they must have
+   attended two IETF meetings.  This requirement is designed to ensure
+   the nomination committee has some familiarity with the Internet
+   community and the standards process.
+
+   IAB and IESG members are to serve two years.  Half of each body is to
+   have terms starting in odd years, and half is to have terms starting
+   in even years.  Selections to the IESG have to be ratified by the
+   IAB, and selections to the IAB had to be ratified by the ISOC.  In
+   the event that the nomination committee is unable to reach a
+   consensus on a single candidate for each position, it may forward
+   multiple nominations to the ratifying body, and the ratifying body
+   will select the candidate.
+
+   In addition to this selection process, a recall mechanism was
+   outlined using a similar scheme.  The ISOC is to supply an ombudsman
+   who will field complaints after all oversight processes have been
+   exhausted.  If the ombudsman is unable to resolve a complaint after a
+   cooling off period, a recall committee, selected at random among
+   volunteering community members, will consider the matter.  A two
+   thirds vote by the committee is necessary to remove someone.
+
+   This proposal was formulated and circulated during Wednesday and
+   Thursday and presented at the IESG open plenary.  In contrast to the
+   extraordinarily contentious open IESG meeting in Cambridge, this
+   meeting was characterized by a strenuous effort by numerous people,
+   representing diverse points of view, to reach consensus on this
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+   proposal, and the meeting ended with a distinct decision to proceed
+   on this basis.  Given the strong consensus that emerged at that
+   meeting, the group decided to implement the selection process by the
+   next IETF meeting, with the new IESG and IAB members to begin their
+   terms at the termination of the IETF meeting in March.
+
+   On Friday, the IAB and IESG met jointly to determine what to do next.
+   Both groups agreed to implement the change in processing standards
+   actions quickly and cooperatively and to identify the positions which
+   are open for selection.  Within a couple of weeks, the IAB finished
+   processing the standards actions in its queue, and IESG began to
+   handle standards actions on its own.
+
+December ISOC meeting
+
+   The Internet Society Trustees met December 10 and 11 at CNRI in
+   Reston, VA.  The process and organization of the IAB and IETF was one
+   of their major concerns.  A session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST,
+   December 10, was broadcast via the Internet.  It was not clear how
+   many people listened, but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, was spliced
+   in separately from Australia.
+
+   At this session, I presented the POISED WG results deliberations and
+   asked on behalf of the IETF that the Trustees approve the selection
+   process described above.  For the long run, a new charter is needed.
+   Given the very compressed schedule for these activities, there has
+   not been time to draft and refine a new charter, so the Trustees were
+   asked to approve the general direction of the reorganization of the
+   IAB and IETF and give temporary approval to the selection process in
+   order to permit the first round of selections to proceed.
+
+   The Trustees expressed strong approval for the work of the POISED WG
+   and general approval for the direction of the effort.  One area of
+   concern for the Trustees is the legal liability of the Internet
+   Society regarding decisions the IESG might make in the future.  The
+   Trustees made it quite clear that they are not inclined to
+   micromanage the IETF process, but they do feel compelled to
+   understand the legal issues and help construct a charter which is
+   consistent with their responsibilities as Trustees.
+
+   The session adjourned with agreement to proceed on the current course
+   and for the IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees to work together to draft the
+   appropriate charter.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+Future activities
+
+   Both the IESG and IAB have selected the positions which must be
+   filled through the new selection process.  As I write this, Vint Cerf
+   has been working to find a chair for the nominations committee, and
+   the process should move forward during January and February.
+   Communications on the details of the nomination process will be
+   published on the IETF mailing list and possibly other forums.  As
+   described above, the selection process should be complete well before
+   the next IETF meeting, and preferably by the end of February.
+
+   The other open agenda item is the draft of a new charter for the IAB
+   and IETF and adoption of the charter by the ISOC.  This is the next
+   order of business for the POISED WG.
+
+ATTACHMENT 1: Message from Vint Cerf to the IETF, et al.
+
+   To: pgross@nis.ans.net
+   Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@NRI.Reston.VA.US, ietf@isi.edu,
+           internet-society-trustees:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US,
+           internet-society-members:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US,
+           isoc-interest@relay.sgi.com
+   Subject: Request for Recommendations
+   Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:46:48 -0400
+   From: vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US
+   Message-Id:  <9208122146.aa10744@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US>
+
+
+
+
+   To:      IETF Chairman
+   CC:      IAB, IETF, IRTF, ISOC Trustees, and ISOC Members
+   From:    President, Internet Society
+   Subject: Request for Recommendations on IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISOC Procedures
+
+Introduction
+
+   In June, 1992, The Internet Society Board of Trustees received a
+   proposed charter for an Internet Architecture Board to be created
+   within the Internet Society. The new Internet Architecture Board was
+   envisioned to be made up of the then current members of the Internet
+   Activities Board. The functions of the IETF and the IRTF would be
+   brought under the umbrella of the Internet Society as elements of the
+   newly chartered Internet Architecture Board. The Trustees voted to
+   accept the proposed charter, which is contained in RFC 1358.
+
+   In the period between June and July, a great deal of discussion
+   occurred both by email and at the IETF meeting in Boston about the
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+   procedures by which the IAB, IETF, and IRTF should work together
+   under the general umbrella of the Internet Society. Among the many
+   points raised, three seemed particularly important to consider:
+
+      1. Procedures for making appointments to the Internet Architecture
+         Board.
+
+      2. Procedures for resolving disagreements among the IETF, IESG,
+         and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards.
+
+      3. Methods for ensuring that for any particular Internet Standard,
+         procedures have been followed satisfactorily by all parties
+         so that everyone with an interest has had a fair opportunity
+         to be heard.
+
+   Effective discussion of these issues requires the availability of an
+   open venue, an opportunity to comment by email, and the possibility
+   of conducting face-to-face meetings. Recognizing this, the IAB has
+   recommended that the most effective means available to the Internet
+   Community for gathering recommendations for refining our existing
+   procedures is to request that an IETF Working Group be formed.
+
+   I am pleased to make this request of the IETF to create such a WG.
+   It would be extremely helpful to have recommendations on the three
+   topics listed above by the first of December, 1992, in time to be
+   presented at the Internet Society Board of Trustees meeting scheduled
+   for December 10th.
+
+   With respect to point 1 above, the current procedures for making IAB
+   appointments are contained in the IAB charter (RFC 1358). RFC 1310
+   contains a description of the current process by which Internet
+   Standards are achieved. Points (2) and (3) could be discussed in the
+   context of the present procedures described in RFC 1310, which
+   recognizes a number of open issues in an appendix.
+
+   The Internet Society Trustees hope that members of the IAB, IRTF,
+   IESG, and IETF, as well as general members of the Internet Society,
+   will take the time to share their thoughts in the proposed working
+   group forum. It is vital to the future of the Internet that these key
+   groups work together well. Certainly, the Internet Society Trustees
+   are committed to doing everything possible to facilitate effective
+   procedures and to preserve and enhance the special spirit of the
+   Internet Community which has created and maintains the health and
+   growth of the global Internet.
+
+   Vint Cerf
+   President
+   Internet Society
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+Process for Organization of Internet Standards (poised)
+
+   Charter
+
+   Chair(s):
+        Steve Crocker  <crocker@tis.com>
+
+   Mailing lists:
+        General Discussion:poised@nri.reston.va.us
+        To Subscribe:      poised-request@nri.reston.va.us
+        Archive:           nri.reston.va.us:~/poised/current
+
+   Description of Working Group:
+
+          The goal of this working group is to examine the Internet
+          standards process and the responsibilities of the IAB, with
+          attention to the relationship between the IAB and IETF/IESG.
+
+          The need for this working group was suggested during
+          discussions at the July 1992 IETF.  This led to a request
+          from the Internet Society president to form such a working
+          group.
+
+           The WG will consider the following matters:
+
+            1. Procedures for making appointments to the Internet
+               Architecture Board.
+
+            2. Procedures for resolving disagreements among IETF, IESG
+               and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards.
+
+            3. Methods for assuring that for any particular Internet
+               Standard, procedures have been followed satisfactorily by
+               all parties so that everyone with an interest has had a
+               fair opportunity to be heard.
+
+
+            The WG will begin with a review of the procedures for making
+            IAB appointments as documented in RFC 1358 and a review of
+            the standards-making process documented in RFC 1310.
+
+            The WG has a goal of issuing a final report in time for IESG
+            consideration and publication as an RFC before the
+            ISOC Board of Trustee's meeting in December 1992.  Given the
+            compressed timescale, the WG will conduct most of its
+            deliberations by electronic mail on the POISED WG mailing
+            list.   There will also be a preliminary report and
+            discussions at the November 1992 IETF meeting in
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+            Washington, DC.
+
+            This will be a normal IETF WG, i.e. the mailing list and all
+            discussions will be completely open.
+
+   Goals and Milestones:
+
+      Sep 92 Gather initial set of issues and write a preliminary
+             report.
+
+      Oct 92 Post as an Internet Draft the initial recommendations to
+             the ISOC Board.
+
+      Nov 92 Open discussion and presentation of the work of the POISED
+             Working Group at Washington D.C. IETF meeting.
+
+      Dec 92 Submit the recommendations document to the IESG for posting
+             as an Informational RFC.  This document will be
+             subsequently transmitted to the ISOC Board.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                         [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993
+
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Stephen D. Crocker
+   Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
+   3060 Washington Road
+   Glenwood, MD 21738
+
+   Phone: (301) 854-6889
+
+   Email: crocker@TIS.COM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crocker                                                        [Page 10]
+
\ No newline at end of file