From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5111.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3