doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3933.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3933.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f4fc41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3933.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
+Request for Comments: 3933                                    S. Dawkins
+BCP: 93                                                    November 2004
+Category: Best Current Practice
+
+
+                  A Model for IETF Process Experiments
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
+   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+Abstract
+
+   The IETF has designed process changes over the last ten years in one
+   of two ways: announcement by the IESG, sometimes based on informal
+   agreements with limited community involvement and awareness, and
+   formal use of the same mechanism used for protocol specification.
+   The first mechanism has often proven to be too lightweight, the
+   second too heavyweight.
+
+   This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of
+   making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose
+   and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then
+   establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model
+   rather than those previously attempted.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+   2.  Background and Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+       5.1.  Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+       5.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   6.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+       Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of
+   making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose
+   and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then
+   establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model
+   rather than those previously attempted.
+
+2.  Background and Specification
+
+   Since the 1992 changes documented in [RFC1396], the IETF has used two
+   mechanisms for process changes.
+
+   1. IESG has adopted a number of procedural changes on its own
+      initiative and documented them informally, utilizing the wide
+      discretion implicitly granted to them by [RFC2026].  This provided
+      a lightweight mechanism for change, but the lightness came with a
+      cost: There was sometimes too little alignment with the larger
+      IETF community.
+
+   2. The IETF has also used the [RFC2026] protocol standards
+      development process to identify a community of interest, hold one
+      or more BoFs, charter a working group, discuss proposed changes
+      within the community, develop IETF-wide consensus on the changes,
+      and publish (usually) Best Current Practice specifications.  This
+      provided full community involvement but also came with a cost in
+      flexibility.  The IETF does not change its formal processes often
+      (the IPR clarifications in [RFC3667, RFC3668] are the first
+      documented changes to [RFC2026] since 1996), and the community is
+      understandably reluctant to permanently alter or extend formally
+      adopted processes with untried new procedures.
+
+   There is a middle ground between BCP process updates and informal
+   agreements.  This document specifies regularizing and formalizing the
+   informal IESG mechanisms listed in 1 above as a means of moving
+   forward with procedural changes that might prove valuable.
+
+   The mechanisms outlined here add to the IESG's range of tools for
+   dealing with process issues on an ongoing basis.  They supplement the
+   existing tools rather than attempting to replace them with a single
+   "magic bullet".  The choice of using the procedure outlined in this
+   document or other mechanisms available to the IESG and the community
+   -- present or future -- remains in the IESG's hands.  If the IESG
+   does not exercise this discretion wisely, this document provides no
+   additional remedies.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+   Some have interpreted the current procedures as giving the IESG all
+   of the capabilities outlined here.  If this were true, this document
+   only encourages the IESG to use this type of mechanism more
+   frequently in preference to less streamlined ones, and to more
+   explicitly document its actions and decisions.
+
+   This specification permits and encourages the IESG to adopt and
+   institute "process experiments" by using the following procedure:
+
+   1. An I-D is written describing the proposed new or altered
+      procedure.  A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
+      desirable but not required (the intent is to keep the firm
+      requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as possible).
+      Similarly, specific experimental or evaluative criteria, although
+      highly desirable, are not required -- for some of the process
+      changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the
+      end of the sunset period that the community generally believes
+      things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
+      sufficient.  The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout
+      typically, not to exceed one year after adoption.
+
+   2. If the IESG believes the proposal is plausible and plausibly
+      useful, a four-week IETF Last Call is initiated.  The IESG can
+      institute whatever procedures it wishes to make this determination
+      and to avoid denial of service attacks from large numbers of
+      spurious or unimportant proposals.  In particular, they might
+      institute a procedure requiring a number of endorsements, or
+      endorsements of a particular type, before the IESG considers the
+      proposal.  The IESG is, however, expected to understand that
+      procedures or review processes that act as a mechanism for
+      significant delays do not fall within the intent of this
+      specification.
+
+   3. At the conclusion of the Last Call, the IESG reevaluates the
+      plausibility and appropriateness of the proposal.  If they
+      conclude that the proposed experiment is appropriate, a second I-D
+      is generated (either by the IESG or by the original authors with
+      IESG advice) that cleans up any definitional issues exposed in the
+      Last Call and that explicitly identifies and responds to issues
+      raised during the Last Call.
+
+   4. The document and experiment are then announced, the experiment is
+      begun, and the document is forwarded for publication as an
+      Experimental RFC.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+   The IESG is explicitly authorized to use this mechanism (based on
+   Experimental RFCs) to gain experience with proposed changes to BCP
+   specifications.  There is no requirement to approve a BCP
+   specification for the experiment until the experiment is found to
+   have value.
+
+   The IESG could, of course, reach a "bad idea" conclusion at any stage
+   in this process and abandon the experiment.  It might recommend
+   publication of the experimental document, with a discussion of why it
+   was a bad idea, but is not required to do so.  The list above is
+   deliberately vague about where the I-Ds come from: a WG, design team,
+   individual contribution, editing group, or other mechanism could be
+   used in the first and/or third steps, but no specific mechanisms are
+   required, and the IESG is explicitly permitted to generate such
+   proposals internally.
+
+   In each case, the IESG's decision to go forward (or not) with a
+   procedural experiment, or the steps leading up to one, is expected to
+   reflect their judgment of the existence of rough consensus in the
+   community.  That judgment may be appealed using the usual procedures,
+   but the IESG and the community are reminded that an experimental
+   attempt to try something for a fixed period is typically a better
+   engineering approach than extended philosophical discussion without
+   any experience to back it up.
+
+   Nothing above is to be construed as requiring an IETF-wide attempt
+   for any given process experiment.  A proposal for such an experiment
+   may specify selected areas, selected working groups, working groups
+   meeting some specific criteria (e.g., those created after a
+   particular time or of a specified age), or be specific in other ways.
+
+   At or before the end of the "sunset" timeout, the IESG would either
+   revise (or cause to be revised) the document into a BCP RFC or the
+   procedure would expire and, presumably, not be tried again unless
+   something changed radically.  A document describing why the
+   experiment had succeeded or failed would be desirable but could not,
+   realistically, be a requirement.  If the procedure went to BCP, the
+   BCP would reflect what we would call "operational experience" in the
+   real world.
+
+   We note that, if the procedures the IESG has adopted (and the
+   procedural exceptions it has made) over the last decade are
+   legitimate, then the IESG has the authority to institute the changes
+   specified here by bootstrapping this process.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document specifies a mechanism for evolving IETF procedures.  It
+   does not raise or consider any protocol-specific security issues.  In
+   considering experimental changes to procedures, the IESG should, of
+   course, exercise due caution that such changes not reduce the quality
+   of security review and consideration for protocols or, at least, that
+   the process experiment proposals contain early detection and
+   correction mechanisms should quality deterioration occur.
+
+4.  Acknowledgements
+
+   The first revision of this document benefited significantly from
+   suggestions and comments from Avri Doria, Margaret Wasserman, and
+   Harald Alvestrand, and from discussions with the General Area
+   Directorate and at its open meeting during IETF 59.  After mailing
+   list discussion, considerable explanatory material was removed to a
+   separate document for the current version.
+
+   The first version of this document was posted as an Internet Draft on
+   February 7, 2004.
+
+5.  References
+
+5.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
+             3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
+
+5.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC1396] Crocker, S., "The Process for Organization of Internet
+             Standards Working Group (POISED)", RFC 1396, January 1993.
+
+   [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
+             3667, February 2004.
+
+   [RFC3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
+             Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+6.  Authors' Addresses
+
+   John C Klensin
+   1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
+   Cambridge, MA  02140
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 617 491 5735
+   EMail: john-ietf@jck.com
+
+
+   Spencer Dawkins
+   1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
+   Allen, TX  75002
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 469 330 3616
+   EMail: spencer@mcsr-labs.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3933          A Model for IETF Process Experiments     November 2004
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, 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 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 ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC 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.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Klensin & Dawkins        Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]
+