doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 423 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9b4861f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      B. Carpenter
+Request for Comments: 8989                             Univ. of Auckland
+Category: Experimental                                        S. Farrell
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                   Trinity College Dublin
+                                                           February 2021
+
+
+        Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that
+   temporarily updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to
+   participate in the IETF Nominating Committee.  It therefore also
+   updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community recall
+   petition.  The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in view
+   of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a reduction in
+   face-to-face meetings.  The experiment is of fixed duration and will
+   apply to one, or at most two, consecutive Nominating Committee
+   cycles, starting in 2021.  This document temporarily varies the rules
+   in RFC 8713.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
+   evaluation.
+
+   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
+   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
+   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
+   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
+   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
+   all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
+   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8989.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Term and Evaluation of the Experiment
+   3.  Goals
+   4.  Criteria
+     4.1.  Clarifying Detail
+   5.  Omitted Criteria
+   6.  IANA Considerations
+   7.  Security Considerations
+   8.  Normative References
+   Appendix A.  Available Data
+   Acknowledgements
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) is
+   populated from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of
+   attendance at IETF plenary meetings, which were assumed to be face-
+   to-face meetings when that document was approved.  In view of the
+   cancellation of the IETF 107, 108, 109, and 110 face-to-face
+   meetings; the risk of future cancellations; the probability of less-
+   frequent face-to-face meetings in the future in support of
+   sustainability; and a general increase in remote participation, this
+   document defines a process experiment [RFC3933] of fixed duration
+   (described in Section 2) to use modified and additional criteria to
+   qualify volunteers.
+
+   During this experiment, the eligibility criteria for signing recall
+   petitions -- which [RFC8713] defines to be the same as those for
+   NomCom eligibility -- are consequently also modified as described in
+   this document.  This experiment has no other effect on the recall
+   process.
+
+2.  Term and Evaluation of the Experiment
+
+   The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 through 110 meetings means
+   that the current criteria are in any case seriously perturbed for at
+   least 2 years.  The experiment therefore needs to start as soon as
+   possible.  However, the experiment did not apply to the selection of
+   the 2020-2021 NomCom, which was performed according to [RFC8788].
+
+   The experiment will initially cover the IETF NomCom cycle that begins
+   in 2021.  As soon as the entire 2021-2022 NomCom is seated, the IESG
+   must consult the 2021-2022 NomCom Chair and the 2020-2021 NomCom
+   Chair (who will maintain NomCom confidentiality) and publish a report
+   on the results of the experiment.  Points to be considered are
+   whether the experiment has produced a sufficiently large and diverse
+   pool of individuals, whether enough of those individuals have
+   volunteered to produce a representative NomCom with good knowledge of
+   the IETF, and whether all the goals in Section 3 have been met.  If
+   possible, a comparison with results from the previous procedure
+   (i.e., RFC 8713) should be made.
+
+   The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of whether to:
+
+   1.  Amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle; or
+
+   2.  Prolong the current experiment for a second and final year with
+       additional clarifications specific to the 2022-2023 cycle; or
+
+   3.  Run a different experiment for the next nominating cycle; or
+
+   4.  Revert to [RFC8713].
+
+   The IESG will announce the results of the consensus determination of
+   this discussion in good time for the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle to
+   commence.
+
+   In the event of prolongation of this experiment for a second year,
+   the IESG will repeat the consultation, report, and community
+   discussion process accordingly, but this document lapses at the end
+   of the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle.
+
+3.  Goals
+
+   The goals of the modified and additional criteria are as follows:
+
+   *  Mitigate the issue of active remote (or, rarely, in-person)
+      participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall
+      processes.
+
+   *  Enable the selection of a 2021-2022 NomCom, and possibly a
+      2022-2023 NomCom, when it is impossible for anyone to have
+      attended 3 out of the last 5 IETF meetings in person.
+
+   *  Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less
+      frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of
+      participants).
+
+   *  Ensure that those eligible have enough current understanding of
+      IETF practices and people to make informed decisions.
+
+   *  Provide algorithmic criteria, so that the Secretariat can check
+      them mechanically against available data.
+
+4.  Criteria
+
+   This experiment specifies several alternative paths to qualification,
+   replacing the single criterion in Section 4.14 of [RFC8713].  Any one
+   of the paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise
+   disqualified under Section 4.15 of [RFC8713]:
+
+   Path 1:  The person has registered for and attended 3 out of the last
+      5 IETF meetings.  For meetings held entirely online, online
+      registration and attendance count as attendance.  For the
+      2021-2022 NomCom, the meetings concerned will be IETF 106, 107,
+      108, 109, and 110.  Attendance is as determined by the record
+      keeping of the Secretariat for in-person meetings and is based on
+      being a registered person who logged in for at least one session
+      of an online IETF meeting.
+
+   Path 2:  The person has been a Working Group Chair or Secretary
+      within the 3 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers
+      is sent to the community.
+
+   Path 3:  The person has been a listed author or editor (on the front
+      page) of at least two IETF Stream RFCs within the last 5 years
+      prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the
+      community.  An Internet-Draft that has been approved by the IESG
+      and is in the RFC Editor queue counts the same as a published RFC,
+      with the relevant date being the date the draft was added to the
+      RFC Editor queue.  For avoidance of doubt, the 5-year timer
+      extends back to the date 5 years before the date when the call for
+      NomCom volunteers is sent to the community.
+
+   Notes:
+
+   *  Path 1 corresponds approximately to [RFC8713], modified as per
+      [RFC8788].
+
+   *  Path 3 includes approved drafts, since some documents spend a long
+      time in the RFC Editor's queue.
+
+   *  Path 3 extends to 5 years because it commonly takes 3 or 4 years
+      for new documents to be approved in the IETF Stream, so 3 years
+      would be too short a sampling period.
+
+   *  All the required data are available to the IETF Secretariat from
+      meeting attendance records or the IETF Datatracker.
+
+4.1.  Clarifying Detail
+
+   Path 1 does not qualify people who register and attend face-to-face
+   meetings remotely.  That is, it does not qualify remote attendees at
+   IETF 106, because that meeting took place prior to any question of
+   cancelling meetings.
+
+   If the IESG prolongs this experiment for a second year, as allowed by
+   Section 2, the IESG must also clarify how Path 1 applies to IETF 111,
+   112, and 113.
+
+5.  Omitted Criteria
+
+   During community discussions of this document, certain criteria were
+   rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF participation or as
+   being unlikely to significantly expand the volunteer pool.  These
+   included authorship of individual or Working-Group-adopted Internet-
+   Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing drafts, acting as a
+   BOF Chair, and acting in an external role for the IETF (liaisons,
+   etc.).
+
+   One path -- service in the IESG or IAB within the last 5 years -- was
+   found to have no benefit, since historical data show that such people
+   always appear to be qualified by another path.
+
+   Since the criteria must be measurable by the Secretariat, no
+   qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is
+   considered.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document has no IANA actions.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document should not affect the security of the Internet.
+
+8.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC3933]  Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process
+              Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933,
+              November 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3933>.
+
+   [RFC8713]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
+              Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
+              Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
+              Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.
+
+   [RFC8788]  Leiba, B., "Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating
+              Committee", BCP 10, RFC 8788, DOI 10.17487/RFC8788, May
+              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8788>.
+
+Appendix A.  Available Data
+
+   An analysis of how some of the above criteria would affect the number
+   of NomCom-qualified participants if applied in August 2020 has been
+   performed.  The results are presented below in Venn diagrams as
+   Figures 1 through 4.  Note that the numbers shown differ slightly
+   from manual counts due to database mismatches, and the results were
+   not derived at the normal time of the year for NomCom formation.  The
+   lists of remote attendees for IETF 107 and 108 were used, although
+   not yet available on the IETF web site.
+
+   A specific difficulty is that the databases involved inevitably
+   contain a few inconsistencies, such as duplicate entries, differing
+   versions of a person's name, and impersonal authors.  (For example,
+   "IAB" qualifies under Path 3, and one actual volunteer artificially
+   appears not to qualify.)  This underlines that automatically
+   generated lists of eligible and qualified people will always require
+   manual checking.
+
+   The first two diagrams illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) affect
+   eligibility numbers compared to the meeting participation path (1).
+   Figure 1 gives the raw numbers, and Figure 2 removes those
+   disqualified according to RFC 8713.  The actual 2020 volunteer pool
+   is shown too.
+
+      People eligible via Path 1,
+      3 of 5 meetings: 842
+      +----------------------+
+      |                      |
+      |   379                |
+      |          +-----------+----------------+
+      |          |           |                | People eligible
+      |          |   332     |     1104       | via Path 2
+      |          |           |                | or Path 3:
+      |   +------+-----------+-------+        | 1541
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   | 29   |  102      |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      +---+------+-----------+       |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      |       3           |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      +-------------------+--------+
+          |                          |
+          |            1             |
+          |                          |
+          +--------------------------+
+          2020 actual volunteers: 135
+
+                Figure 1: All Paths, before Disqualification
+
+      Qualified via Path 1,
+      3 of 5 meetings: 806
+      +----------------------+
+      |                      |
+      |   375                |
+      |          +-----------+----------------+
+      |          |           |                | Qualified
+      |          |   300     |     1104       | via Path 2
+      |          |           |                | or Path 3:
+      |   +------+-----------+-------+        | 1509
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   | 29   |  102      |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      +---+------+-----------+       |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      |       3           |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      +-------------------+--------+
+          |                          |
+          |            1             |
+          |                          |
+          +--------------------------+
+          2020 actual volunteers: 135
+
+                Figure 2: All Paths, after Disqualification
+
+   Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) interact with
+   each other, also before and after disqualifications.  The discarded
+   path via IESG and IAB service (Section 5) is also shown, as Path "I".
+   The data clearly show that Path "I" has no practical value.
+
+      People eligible via Path 2
+      Total: 253
+      +----------------------+
+      |                      |
+      |   46                 |
+      |          +-----------+----------------+
+      |          |           |                | People eligible
+      |          |   176     |     1266       | via Path 3
+      |          |           |                | Total:
+      |   +------+-----------+-------+        | 1493
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   | 2    |  29       |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      +---+------+-----------+       |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      |       22          |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      +-------------------+--------+
+          |                          |
+          |            2             |
+          |                          |
+          +--------------------------+
+          People eligible via Path "I": 55
+
+                Figure 3: New Paths, before Disqualification
+
+      Qualified via Path 2
+      Total: 234
+      +----------------------+
+      |                      |
+      |   45                 |
+      |          +-----------+----------------+
+      |          |           |                | Qualified
+      |          |   172     |     1264       | via Path 3
+      |          |           |                | Total:
+      |   +------+-----------+-------+        | 1463
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   | 1    |  16       |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      |   |      |           |       |        |
+      +---+------+-----------+       |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      |       11          |        |
+          |      |                   |        |
+          |      +-------------------+--------+
+          |                          |
+          |            0             |
+          |                          |
+          +--------------------------+
+          Qualified via Path "I": 28
+
+                Figure 4: New Paths, after Disqualification
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   Useful comments were received from Abdussalam Baryun, Alissa Cooper,
+   Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Bron Gondwana, Russ Housley, Christian
+   Huitema, Ben Kaduk, John Klensin, Victor Kuarsingh, Warren Kumari,
+   Barry Leiba, Eric Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Ines
+   Robles, Martin Thomson, and Magnus Westerlund.
+
+   The data analysis was mainly done by Robert Sparks.  Carsten Bormann
+   showed how to represent Venn diagrams in ASCII art.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Brian E. Carpenter
+   The University of Auckland
+   School of Computer Science
+   PB 92019
+   Auckland 1142
+   New Zealand
+
+   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
+
+
+   Stephen Farrell
+   Trinity College Dublin
+   College Green
+   Dublin
+   Ireland
+
+   Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie