GENWiki

Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 1871 ISI Updates: 1602, 1603 November 1995 BCP: 2 Category: Best Current Practice

             Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure

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.

Abstract

 This document describes a modification to the IETF procedures to
 allow an escape from a situation where the existing procedures are
 not working or do not seem to apply.  This is a modification to the
 procedures of RFC 1602 and 1603.

Introduction

 The current IETF procedures are documented in "The Internet Standards
 Process -- Revision 2" [1], and "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
 Procedures" [2].

 There may be situations where following the procedures leads to a
 deadlock, or there may be situations where the procedures provide no
 guidance.  In these cases it may be appropriate to invoke the
 variance procedure described below.

 A revision of the rules specified in RFC 1602 is underway, but may
 take some time. This document describes an interim amendment to RFC
 1602, to avoid having to wait for this major revision in a state of
 paralysis.

Guiding Principles

 Any variance from following the written rules must be a public
 process with opportunity for all concerned parties to comment.

 The variance procedure should be similar to existing mechanisms and
 involve existing bodies.

Postel Best Current Practice [Page 1]  RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995

The Variance Procedure

 Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
 no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of the
 responsible ad hoc committee), the IESG may enter a particular
 specification into, or advance it within, the standards track even
 though some of the requirements of section 5 of RFC 1602 have not or
 will not be met. The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only
 if it first determines that the likely benefits to the Internet
 community from entering or advancing the specification on the
 standards track are likely to outweigh the costs to the Internet
 community that result from noncompliance with section 5.  In
 exercising this discretion, the IESG shall consider (a) the technical
 merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
 goals of the Internet standards process without granting a variance,
 (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral
 and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's
 ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible.  In
 determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to
 limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of section 5 and
 to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it
 determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
 community.

 There are five aspects that are involved in the variance procedure:
 (1) detecting the problem, (2) proposing a solution, (3) public
 review, (4) accepting the solution, and (5) an appeal process.

 1. Detecting the problem

 The responsible IETF Working Group, (or, if no Working Group is
 constituted, the responsible ad hoc committee), may bring the matter
 of a variance before the IESG.

 2. Proposing the solution

 The IESG is responsible for proposing the solution.

 The IESG may enter a particular specification into, or advance it
 within, the standards track even though some of the requirements of
 section 5 of RFC 1602 have not or will not be met.

 In exercising this discretion, the IESG shall consider (a) the
 technical merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of
 achieving the goals of the Internet standards process without
 granting a variance, (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance,
 (d) the collateral and precedential effects of granting a variance,
 and (e) the IESG's ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as

Postel Best Current Practice [Page 2]  RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995

 possible.

 The IESG should consult WG chair and appropriate WG members as
 needed, and the wishes of the WG should also be taken into account.

 3. Public review

 There shall be an extended Last Call for public review.

 4. Accepting the solution

 The IESG is responsible for accepting the solution, and incorporating
 comments from the Last Call.

 The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only if it first
 determines that the likely benefits to the Internet community from
 entering or advancing the specification on the standards track are
 likely to outweigh the costs to the Internet community that result
 from noncompliance with section 5 of RFC 1602.

 In determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion
 to limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of section 5
 of RFC 1602 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations
 as it determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
 community.

 5. The appeal procedure

 The IAB is responsible for hearing and deciding appeals.

Discussion

 When the IESG (on reviewing a recommendation for a variance) the has
 determined that there is a situation where the existing written rules
 do not apply or lead to a deadlock, the IESG may propose a solution
 to the problem.

 The solution may be developed by the IESG or suggested to the IESG.

 The solution may either (1) decide the particular instance of the
 matter, or (2) define a procedure for resolving matters of this kind.

 In any case, the proposed solution will be documented in an Internet
 Draft and subjected to an extended Last Call.

 Depending on the results of the Last Call, the IESG will either
 accept the solution; or revise the proposal, update the Internet
 Draft, and initiate another extended Last Call.

Postel Best Current Practice [Page 3]  RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995

 When the IESG accepts a solution the Internet Draft shall be
 forwarded to the RFC Editor and published as an RFC.

 The IAB shall be available to hear and decide on appeals of the use
 this variance procedure.

Acknowledgements

 The contributions of the IAB and the IESG -- and Brian Carpenter,
 Paul Mockapetris, Christian Huitema, Robert Elz, Frank Kastenholz,
 and Scott Bradner, in particular -- are gratefully acknowledged.
 Scott deserves special credit for working with the lawyers to get
 that first paragraph in the "The Variance Procedure" section.

References

 [1] IAB, and IESG, "Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC
     1602, IAB and IESG, March 1994.

 [2] Huizer, E., and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
     Procedures", RFC 1603, SURFnet and Silicon Graphics, Inc., March
     1994.

Security Considerations

 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Authors' Address

    Jon Postel
    USC - ISI, Suite 1001
    4676 Admiralty Way
    Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
    Phone: 310-822-1511
    EMail: postel@isi.edu

Postel Best Current Practice [Page 4]