💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc5111.gmi captured on 2022-04-29 at 01:14:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: [--------|e], working group formation, bof, birds of a feather
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]