doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..57b7a20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                           B. Aboba
+Request for Comments: 5111                         Microsoft Corporation
+Category: Experimental                                        L. Dondeti
+                                                          QUALCOMM, Inc.
+                                                            January 2008
+
+
+          Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the
+                Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
+   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
+   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
+   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document describes an RFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group
+   formation process, known as the Exploratory Group.  Exploratory
+   Groups may be created as the first step toward Working Group
+   formation, or as an intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather
+   (BOF) session and Working Group creation.  Exploratory Groups are
+   focused on completion of prerequisites for Working Group formation,
+   and as a result they have a short life-time, with limited
+   opportunities for milestone extension.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+      1.1. Requirements ...............................................4
+   2. Exploratory Group Formation .....................................4
+   3. The Experiment ..................................................5
+      3.1. Success Metrics ............................................5
+   4. Security Considerations .........................................6
+   5. Normative References ............................................6
+   6. Acknowledgments .................................................6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" [RFC2418] describes
+   the Working Group formation process within the Internet Engineering
+   Task Force (IETF).  As noted in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1:
+
+      When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working
+      group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several
+      issues:
+
+      - Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and
+        relevant to the Internet community?
+
+      - Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable
+        within a reasonable time frame?
+
+      - What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the
+        level of effort required?
+
+      - Do the working group's activities overlap with those of another
+        working group?
+        ...
+
+      - Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working
+        group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to
+        produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?
+        ...
+
+      - Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's
+        topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the
+        working group?
+        ...
+
+      - Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist
+        for the planned work?
+        ...
+
+      - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the
+        determination of the technology?
+        ...
+
+      - Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the
+        proposed working group's efforts issues understood?
+
+      - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an
+        attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input
+        from IETF participants may be limited?
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+      - Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is
+        relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to
+        pursue?  This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere.
+
+      - Do the working group's goals overlap with known work in another
+        standards body, and if so is adequate liaison in place?
+
+   In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants
+   and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet
+   community may be demonstrated, the answer to other questions (such as
+   an understanding of existing work, clarity or achievability of goals,
+   or overlap with existing working groups or standards bodies) may not
+   be as clear.  In the past, the likely outcome in this circumstance
+   has been to postpone Working Group formation or even Birds of a
+   Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.
+   However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential
+   Working Group officially undetermined for months or even years.
+   While the Area Directors should provide potential Working Group
+   participants timely updates on the status of the potential Working
+   Group and insight into IESG or IAB concerns, currently there is no
+   mechanism to track progress toward Working Group creation, and as a
+   result, participants may not have a clear understanding of the status
+   or the next steps.  Also, the lack of formal recognition may
+   negatively affect the motivation of the participants, and may leave
+   those who have not followed the effort closely with an impression
+   that no work is going on.
+
+   This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
+   Working Group (WG) formation process, known as the Exploratory Group
+   (EG).  Exploratory Group milestones are focused on completion of
+   prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they are
+   expected to conclude within a short time frame, with limited
+   opportunities for milestone extension.
+
+   This Exploratory Group experiment does not alter the Working Group
+   formation guidelines described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1, or
+   the Internet Standards Process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
+   Rather, it builds on these existing processes, introducing an element
+   of formality which may be useful in clarifying IESG and/or IAB
+   concerns relating to Working Group formation criteria and motivating
+   more rapid progress toward their resolution.  Since Exploratory Group
+   documents (including the EG Charter and potential WG Charter) are
+   reviewed and comments are tracked using existing tools and processes,
+   feedback is available to Exploratory Group chairs and authors,
+   providing for transparency and accountability.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+1.1.  Requirements
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+2.  Exploratory Group Formation
+
+   If at any point during the Working Group formation process, relevance
+   to the Internet community and interest within the IETF and end-user
+   community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working Group
+   formation criteria outlined in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not
+   yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that an Exploratory Group be
+   formed.  Exploratory Groups MAY be created as the first step toward
+   Working Group formation, or as an intermediate step between an
+   initial Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation.
+   The formation of an Exploratory Group after a second BOF is NOT
+   RECOMMENDED.
+
+   Since the goal of an Exploratory Group is to put in place the
+   prerequisites for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than
+   might otherwise be possible, Exploratory Groups SHOULD initially be
+   chartered for a period of six months to twelve months, with six
+   months being the default.  While the IESG MAY extend the initial
+   Exploratory Group milestones by an additional six months, extensions
+   beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED.  The Exploratory Group Charter
+   SHOULD include at least the following "basic milestones":
+
+      o Development of a Working Group Charter.
+
+      o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of the
+        Working Group formation criteria described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418]
+        Section 2.1.
+
+   The IESG MAY also include additional milestones within an Exploratory
+   Group charter (such as development of a problem statement or
+   requirements document and/or completion of a review of the literature
+   or current practices), as long as these additional milestones do not
+   compromise the ability of the Exploratory Group to deliver on the
+   basic milestones in a timely way.  A Exploratory Group charter MUST
+   NOT include milestones relating to development of standards track
+   documents or protocol specifications.
+
+   Since the Exploratory Group experiment is not intended as a
+   substitute for the existing Working Group formation process,
+   Exploratory Groups SHOULD be formed only in situations where the
+   prerequisites for formation of a WG are likely to be met if the EG
+   successfully completes the basic milestones.
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+3.  The Experiment
+
+   This experiment runs for a period of 18 months from IESG approval of
+   the experiment.  During the period of the experiment, the IESG MAY
+   approve formation of as many as three Exploratory Groups.  The IESG
+   MUST inform the community in a public statement of any decisions for
+   Exploratory Group formation approved under this experiment.  Such a
+   statement SHOULD include a description of specific Exploratory Group
+   that was formed.
+
+   Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Exploratory
+   Groups to be handled identically to Working Groups in terms of IETF
+   process, tools and infrastructure; no additional burden is to be
+   imposed on the IETF Secretariat.  Other than the abbreviated
+   Exploratory Group charter, the process for formation of an
+   Exploratory Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including
+   review by the IAB and IESG, announcement of the potential Exploratory
+   Group, and request for review by the IETF community.  The operating
+   rules of an Exploratory Group (openness, meeting requirements, etc.)
+   are identical to Working Groups.  From the point of view of IETF
+   infrastructure (tools, membership in the WGCHAIRS mailing list,
+   process rules, Exploratory Group Charter pages, etc.)  Exploratory
+   Groups are treated identically to Working Groups, with the exception
+   that Exploratory Group names should include "EG" within the name
+   (e.g. "EXAMPLEEG"), so as to clearly differentiate them from Working
+   Groups.
+
+   Review of Exploratory Group documents will utilize the same tracking
+   tools and processes (including PROTO shepherding) as other IETF
+   documents; this allows feedback to be viewed by Exploratory Group
+   Chairs and participants, as well as providing additional clarity on
+   next steps.  Formation of an Exploratory Group requires the
+   appointment of an Exploratory Group Chair, and a well defined set of
+   Working Group formation criteria (agreement on the Working Group
+   Charter, review of the formation criteria, problem statement or
+   requirements document, etc.).
+
+3.1.  Success Metrics
+
+   Since one of the goals of this experiment is to enable the more rapid
+   formation of Working Groups, the success of an individual Exploratory
+   Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the
+   progress made toward Working Group formation.  Useful metrics
+   include:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+   Progress on Basic Milestones
+        A Exploratory Group that does not make progress on its basic
+        milestones cannot be judged successful, regardless of its other
+        achievements, such as progress on a literature review or
+        requirements document.  Progress on the basic milestones is
+        measured by whether they are completed within the time-frame
+        specified in the initial Exploratory Group Charter, and whether
+        feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF community is positive,
+        leading the IESG to vote to form a Working Group.
+
+   Mailing List Activity
+        Since one of the goals of the Exploratory Group experiment is to
+        avoid a potential loss of interest among participants, evidence
+        of continued engagement on the part of Exploratory Group
+        participants based on mailing list activity is a potential
+        success metric.  Conversely, an Exploratory Group whose mailing
+        list shows minimal traffic would probably not be a good
+        candidate for milestone extension.
+
+4.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document describes an experiment in the formation of Exploratory
+   Groups.  It has no security considerations.
+
+5.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
+              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
+              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
+
+   [RFC3933]  Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process
+              Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004.
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas
+   Narten, Lars Eggert, Eric Rescorla, Sam Hartman, and John Klensin for
+   valuable input.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Bernard Aboba
+   Microsoft Corporation
+   One Microsoft Way
+   Redmond, WA 98052
+
+   EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
+   Phone: +1 425 706 6605
+   Fax:   +1 425 936 7329
+
+
+   Lakshminath Dondeti
+   QUALCOMM, Inc.
+   5775 Morehouse Dr
+   San Diego, CA
+   USA
+
+   EMail: ldondeti@qualcomm.com
+   Phone: +1 858-845-1267
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+   retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
+   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
+   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 8]
+