1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 8715 Ericsson
Category: Informational February 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for
Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
Abstract
This document captures the rationale for the changes introduced in
RFC 8714, "Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the
IETF Trust".
At the time RFC 8714 was published, the changes to the IETF
Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0 (IASA 2.0) had an impact
on the IETF Trust because members of the IETF Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC), which was being phased out, had served as
Trustees of the IETF Trust. This document provides background on the
past IETF Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the
founding documents during the transition to the new arrangement, and
provides a rationale for the update.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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/rfc8715.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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. Background
3. General Approach
4. Changing the Way Trustees Are Selected
5. Transition
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
This document captures the rationale for the changes introduced in
[RFC8714].
At the time [RFC8714] was published, the changes to the IETF
Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0 (IASA 2.0) had an impact
on the IETF Trust [RFC4071] [RFC4371] [RFC8711]. This is because
members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which
was being phased out, had served as Trustees of the IETF Trust. A
minimal change regarding the selection of the Trustees is implemented
by [RFC8714].
This companion memo provides some background on the details of the
past IETF Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the
founding documents during the transition to the new arrangement, and
provides a rationale for the update.
2. Background
The purpose of the IETF Trust is to acquire, hold, maintain, and
license certain existing and future intellectual property and other
property used in connection with the administration of the IETF
[RFC8714]. The intellectual property is, for instance, rights that
the IETF contributors grant for text in RFCs and Internet-Drafts.
The IETF Trust also manages trademarks such as "IETF" and domain
names such as "ietf.org". The IETF Trust is also serving the broader
Internet community by holding domains and trademarks associated with
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC7979].
The IETF Trust is a legal entity, registered in the Commonwealth of
Virginia [Trust-FD].
Previously, the members of the IAOC also served as ex officio
Trustees of the IETF Trust. The founding documents specify persons
eligible to become Trustees as having to be then-current members of
the IAOC [Trust-FD]. The documents also specify that if for any
reason there are fewer than three individuals serving as Trustees,
then the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), or the IESG's
successor as the leadership of the IETF, shall appoint one or more
individuals to serve in a temporary capacity as Trustee(s) until
eligible persons can be found.
In the previous system, there were eight voting members of the IAOC.
Two were named by the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom), one by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), one by the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), and one by the Internet Society (ISOC)
Board of Trustees. There were three ex officio members via their
roles as IETF Chair, ISOC CEO, and IAB Chair. In addition, the IETF
Administrative Director (IAD) was a non-voting IAOC member who also
served as one of the Trustees.
3. General Approach
There were two basic approaches to resolving the issue with the
Trustees once the IAOC ceased to exist. One approach would be to
merge all IETF Trust functions in the new IASA structure and under
the new legal entity. However, this memo advocates a second approach
where the IETF Trust is kept independent.
The rationale for advocating the second approach is, in part, to
minimize changes to the IETF Trust while the IETF's administrative
structure is undergoing major change. In addition, the IETF Trust
and other administrative IETF processes are quite different. While
very important, the IETF Trust is a low-activity entity where changes
are minimal and gradual, and there are no pressing issues.
4. Changing the Way Trustees Are Selected
When the Trustees were serving on both the IETF Trust and the IAOC,
many of the requirements for naming a particular group of people were
driven by the IAOC's requirements. For the IETF Trust in the new
model, some of those arrangements were rethought, both in terms of
the number and source of the Trustees, as well as the desired
qualifications and length of terms.
Several options were possible, of course. A newly designed selection
process could have been devised, but in this document we argue for
limited change based largely on the fact that a) the IETF Trust
arrangements worked generally well, b) the expected time commitment
is expected to be modest, and c) the assets need very careful
management.
As a result, a smaller group of Trustees appeared sufficient.
In addition, the terms set for the Trustees selected from the IETF
community could be longer than the two-year period typical of other
IETF bodies.
One could have continued the practice of having the chairs and CEOs
from the IETF, IAB, and Internet Society be Trustees as well, but
this may not be necessary. In general, the tasks of the IETF Trust
are well defined, and while there is a need for coordination, it does
not need to be at the level of chairs or CEOs.
Given all this, one approach was to have Trustees appointed by the
NomCom, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees. (One might also
have considered the IETF Administration LLC legal entity instead of
the Internet Society for this role, but the Internet Society is
perhaps more suitable for the role given their focus on the broad use
of the IETF Trust assets and not merely administrative aspects.)
If the same principles used for previous appointments continued to be
used, then appointments performed by the NomCom would need to be
confirmed by another entity. This could be, for instance, either the
IESG or the IAB. The IESG had previously been the confirming body
for the IAOC, so it has been retained in that role for the Trustees.
5. Transition
When the new entity for the IETF Administration LLC was set up, the
IAOC was expected to be discontinued soon thereafter. Fortunately,
there was no pressing need to change all the components of the IAOC
and its dependent organizations at the same time. As discussed in
Section 2, the IESG holds the ability to continue to name Trustees.
Once the updated procedures were in place, the IETF Trust had its
management nominated in the usual manner, and the IESG's exception
process was no longer needed.
6. Security Considerations
This memo has no security implications for the Internet.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
[RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4371>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC7979] Lear, E., Ed. and R. Housley, Ed., "Response to the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request
for Proposals on the IANA Protocol Parameters Registries",
RFC 7979, DOI 10.17487/RFC7979, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7979>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8714] Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Update to the Process for
Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust", BCP 101,
RFC 8714, DOI 10.17487/RFC8714, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8714>.
[Trust-FD] IETF Trust, "Founding Documents",
<https://trustee.ietf.org/founding-documents.html>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank other members of the earlier IASA 2.0
design team: Brian Haberman, Eric Rescorla, Jason Livingood, Joe
Hall, and Leslie Daigle. The author would also like to thank Alissa
Cooper, Ted Hardie, Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Lucy Lynch, and
John Levine for interesting discussions in this problem space, and
Adrian Farrel, Tero Kivinen, Russ Housley, Benjamin Kaduk, Adam
Roach, and Meral Shirazipour for careful review.
Author's Address
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
FI-02700 Kauniainen
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
|
