💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc3184.gmi captured on 2023-06-16 at 23:32:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obsoleted by:
Keywords: internet, engineering, task, force
Network Working Group S. Harris
Request for Comments: 3184 Merit Network
BCP: 54 October 2001
Category: Best Current Practice
IETF Guidelines for Conduct
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction
in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The Guidelines recognize the
diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual
respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.
1. Introduction
The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a broad cultural
diversity of peoples, ideas, and communication styles. The
Guidelines for Conduct inform our interaction as we work together to
develop multiple, interoperable technologies for the Internet. All
IETF participants aim to abide by these Guidelines as we build
consensus in person, at IETF meetings, and in e-mail. If conflicts
arise, we resolve them according to the procedures outlined in BCP
25.[1]
2. Principles of Conduct
1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues
at all times.
IETF participants come from diverse origins and backgrounds and
are equipped with multiple capabilities and ideals. Regardless of
these individual differences, participants treat their colleagues
with respect as persons--especially when it is difficult to agree
with them. Seeing from another's point of view is often
revealing, even when it fails to be compelling.
Harris Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3184 IETF Guidelines for Conduct October 2001
English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
native language of many IETF participants. Native English
speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly and to limit
the use of slang in order to accommodate the needs of all
listeners.
2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without
finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea.
We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through
intimidation or ad hominem attack. Or, said in a somewhat more
IETF-like way:
"Reduce the heat and increase the light"
3. IETF participants think globally, devising solutions that meet the
needs of diverse technical and operational environments.
The goal of the IETF is to maintain and enhance a working, viable,
scalable, global Internet, and the problems we encounter are
genuinely very difficult. We understand that "scaling is the
ultimate problem" and that many ideas quite workable in the small
fail this crucial test. IETF participants use their best
engineering judgment to find the best solution for the whole
Internet, not just the best solution for any particular network,
technology, vendor, or user. We follow the intellectual property
guidelines outlined in BCP 9.[2]
4. Individuals who attend Working Group meetings are prepared to
contribute to the ongoing work of the group.
IETF participants who attend Working Group meetings read the
relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and e-mail archives beforehand, in
order to familiarize themselves with the technology under
discussion. This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as e-
mail archives can be difficult to locate and search, and it may
not be easy to trace the history of longstanding Working Group
debates. With that in mind, newcomers who attend Working Group
meetings are encouraged to observe and absorb whatever material
they can, but should not interfere with the ongoing process of the
group. Working Group meetings run on a very limited time
schedule, and are not intended for the education of individuals.
The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and many
questions would be better expressed on the list in the months that
follow.
Harris Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3184 IETF Guidelines for Conduct October 2001
3. Security Considerations
IETF participants review each Internet protocol for security
concerns, and these concerns are incorporated in the description of
each protocol.
4. Acknowledgements
Mike O'Dell wrote the first draft of the Guidelines for Conduct, and
many of his thoughts, statements, and observations are included in
this version. Many useful editorial comments were supplied by Dave
Crocker. Members of the POISSON Working Group provided many
significant additions to the text.
5. References
[1] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
6. Author's Address
Susan Harris
Merit Network, Inc.
4251 Plymouth Rd., Suite 2000
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785
EMail: srh@merit.edu
Phone: (734) 936-2100
Harris Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3184 IETF Guidelines for Conduct October 2001
7. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Harris Best Current Practice [Page 4]