GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7221

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel Request for Comments: 7221 Juniper Networks Category: Informational D. Crocker, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Brandenburg InternetWorking

                                                            April 2014
         Handling of Internet-Drafts by IETF Working Groups

Abstract

 The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as
 mandated by the working group's charter.  When a working group is
 ready to develop a particular document, the most common mechanism is
 for it to "adopt" an existing document as a starting point.  The
 document that a working group adopts and then develops further is
 based on initial input at varying levels of maturity.  An initial
 working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it
 might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it
 might represent any level of maturity in between.  This document
 discusses how a working group typically handles the formal documents
 that it targets for publication.

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 a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7221.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 1] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 Copyright Notice
 Copyright (c) 2014 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
 (http://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
    1.1. What Is a WG Draft? ........................................3
    1.2. Working Group Authority and Consensus ......................4
    1.3. Questions Considered in This Document ......................5
 2. Adoption Sequence ...............................................6
    2.1. Common Steps ...............................................6
    2.2. Criteria for Adoption ......................................6
 3. Authors/Editors .................................................8
 4. Document History and Stability ..................................8
 5. Some Issues for Consideration ..................................10
    5.1. Individual I-Ds under WG Care .............................10
    5.2. WG Drafts Can Become Individual Drafts ....................11
    5.3. Competing Drafts ..........................................11
 6. Security Considerations ........................................13
 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
 8. Informative References .........................................13

1. Introduction

 The productive output of an IETF working group (WG) is documents, as
 mandated by the working group's charter.  Working groups develop
 these documents based on initial input at varying levels of maturity.
 An initial working group draft might be a document already in wide
 use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working
 group, or it might represent any level of maturity in between.  This
 document discusses how a working group typically handles the formal
 documents that it targets for publication.  The discussion applies
 only to the IETF and does not cover IRTF groups, where practices vary
 widely.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 2] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 Within the general constraints of formal IETF process and the
 specific constraints of a working group's charter, there can be
 considerable freedom in the adoption and development of drafts.  As
 with most IETF activities, the ultimate arbiter of such choices is
 working group agreement, within the constraints of its charter.  As
 with most working group management, this agreement might be explicit
 or implicit, depending upon the efficiencies that the group deems
 appropriate.
 NOTE:  This document is intentionally non-normative.  It is meant as
    a guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of
    what is permissible.

1.1. What Is a WG Draft?

 Working group drafts are documents that are subject to IETF working
 group revision control, with advancement for publication as an RFC
 requiring rough consensus in the working group and then in the
 broader IETF.  Creation or adoption of a draft by a working group --
 as well as substantive changes to the document -- need to represent
 working group rough consensus.
 Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
 Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) [RFC2026] [ID-Info].  Working groups use this
 mechanism for producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
 [RFC2418] and Section 6.3 of [Tao].  The common convention for
 identifying an I-D formally under the ownership of a working group is
 by the inclusion of "ietf" in the second field of the I-D filename
 and the working group name in the third field, per Section 7 of
 [ID-Guidelines].  That is:
                        draft-ietf-<wgname>-...
 In contrast, individual submissions are drafts being created and
 pursued outside of a working group, although a working group might
 choose to adopt the draft later, as discussed below.  Anyone is free
 to create an individual submission at any time.  Such documents are
 typically distinguished through the use of the author/editor's last
 name, in the style of:
                         draft-<lastname>-...
 (Also see Section 5.1 for an elaboration on this naming.)
 Responsibility for direct revision of a working group I-D is assigned
 to its editors and authors.  See Section 3 for discussion about their
 selection and role.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 3] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

1.2. Working Group Authority and Consensus

 A premise of the IETF is that, within a working group, it is the
 working group itself that has final authority over the content of its
 documents, within the constraints of the working group's charter.  No
 individual has special authority for the content.  The Chairs assign
 document authors/editors and can formulate design teams, but the
 content of working group documents is always, ultimately, subject to
 working group approval.  Approval is described in terms of the IETF's
 "rough consensus" construct, which is the prime example of the IETF's
 preference for pragmatics over niceties.  Unanimous agreement is
 always desirable, but more approximate (rough) agreement will
 suffice, as long as it is clear and strong.
 Other than for selection of document authors/editors, as discussed in
 Section 3, working group decision-making about document management is
 subject to normal IETF rough consensus rules.  Useful descriptions of
 this process for a working group are in Section 3.3 of [RFC2418] and
 Section 4.2 of [Tao].  Discussion of the nature of rough consensus
 can be found in [Consensus].
 In terms of the IETF's formal rough consensus processes, the working
 group explicitly develops, modifies, reviews, and approves document
 content, according to overt rough consensus.  For difficult topics
 and/or difficult working group dynamics, this laborious process
 really is essential.  Its diligence validates progress at each step
 along the way.  However, working groups often handle simpler matters
 more simply, such as allowing a Chair to assert the likely agreement
 and then merely call for objections.  Ultimately, the mode of working
 group decision-making is determined by the comfort and engagement of
 the working group with the way the decisions are being made.
 At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable
 authority over content, but this is (merely) for efficiency.  That
 is, the Chairs can permit authors and editors to proceed with an
 implied (default) working group agreement, as long as the working
 group is comfortable with that mode.  Of course, the benefit in the
 mode is efficiency, but its risk is failure to retain or verify
 actual consensus among the working group participants.  When a
 working group is operating in the mode of active, direct author/
 editor content development, an easy validation method is simply to
 have Chairs query the working group when a new document version
 appears, asking for comments and concerns.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 4] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 In general, when it is not completely obvious what the opinion of the
 working group is, Working Group Chairs can poll the working group to
 find out.  As with any other consensus question, the form in which it
 is asked can make a difference.  In particular, a general 'yes/no'
 question often is not as helpful as asking supporters and detractors
 of a draft -- or of the decision under consideration -- to provide
 their reasons, not merely their preferences.  In effect, this treats
 the matter of consensus as an ongoing discussion.  Ideally, the
 discussion can produce changes in the document or in participant
 views, or both.

1.3. Questions Considered in This Document

 The purpose of this document is to discuss the criteria and sequence
 typically followed when adopting and developing a formal IETF working
 group document.  Therefore, this document considers the following
 questions that are particularly relevant to Working Group Chairs who
 are charged with running the process:
  • How do Working Group Chairs decide which drafts to adopt and when?
  • Is it necessary to poll the working group explicitly, and what

does a working group poll look like?

  • How do Working Group Chairs make the decision?
  • What are the process steps the working group will choose to use,

for an I-D to become a WG I-D?

  • Are there any special cases?
  • Can a document be created as a WG I-D from scratch?
  • How can competing drafts be handled?
  • Can an individual I-D be under the care of a WG?
  • Can a WG I-D become an individual I-D?

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 5] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

2. Adoption Sequence

2.1. Common Steps

 When there is interest in adopting a document as a new working group
 document, the Chairs often:
 1.  Remind current draft owners that they are transferring change
     control for the document to the IETF.  (This is a particularly
     significant point for a document covered by proprietary
     interests, because it typically entails a negotiation between the
     current owners and the IETF, including a formal agreement.)
 2.  Check for known IPR that needs to be disclosed, using some
     technique like those described in [RFC6702].
 3.  Obtain working group rough consensus.
 4.  Choose document editors.
 5.  Instruct authors to post the WG I-D.
 6.  Approve posting [Approval].
 7.  Ensure that the non-working group version of the draft is marked
     as being replaced by this working group version.
 8.  Encourage everyone to enjoy the ensuing working group
     discussion...

2.2. Criteria for Adoption

 No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft
 exists; the current document is meant to provide a description of
 common activities for this, but again note that it is not normative.
 There are some basic considerations when deciding to adopt a draft:
  • Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a

document?

  • Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?
  • Is the purpose of the draft sufficiently clear?
  • Does the document provide an acceptable platform for continued

effort by the working group?

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 6] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

  • What are the process or technical objections to adoption of the

draft?

  • Is the draft likely to be completed in a timely manner?
  • Does the intended status of the document seem reasonable to the

working group?

  • If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the charter

feasible and warranted?

  • Does the draft carry known intellectual property rights issues?
  • Is there strong working group support for working on the draft?
 Adoption has some basic pragmatics:
    Rough consensus:  Working group agreement to adopt is not required
       to be unanimous [RFC2418].
    Initial, not final:  The writing quality is not required to be
       "ready for publication", although writing quality can be a
       problem and does need explicit attention; although not
       mandatory, it is good practice to check whether a new working
       group draft passes [IDNITS].
    Adoption, not approval:  The document is not required to already
       contain a complete and/or sufficient solution, although of
       course this can be helpful.  Equally, adoption by a working
       group does not guarantee publication of the document as an RFC.
    Group, not Chairs:  Concerning the draft, the position of the
       Working Group Chairs has no special authority, except to assess
       working group consensus.
 REMINDER:  Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is owned
    by the working group and can be changed however the working group
    decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working group
    charter.  Absent explicit agreement, adopting a document does not
    automatically mean that the working group has agreed to all of its
    content.  So a working group (or its charter) might explicitly
    dictate the basis for retaining, removing, or modifying some or
    all of a draft's content, technical details, or the like.
    However, in the absence of such constraints, it is worth having
    the adoption process include a sub-process of gathering working
    group concerns about the existing draft and flagging them
    explicitly.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 7] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

3. Authors/Editors

 Document authors/editors are chosen by the Working Group Chairs.
 Document editors are described in Section 6.3 of [RFC2418].  Authors
 and editors are described in [RFC-Auth-Ed].
 NOTE:  In this document, the terms 'author' and 'editor' are meant
    interchangeably.  Within the IETF, the distinction between an
    'author' and an 'editor' is, at best, subjective.  A simplistic
    rule of thumb is that editors tend to do the mechanics of
    incorporating working group detail, whereas authors tend to create
    the detail, subject to working group approval.  That is, one role
    is more active with the content, and the other is more passive.
    It is a responsibility of the Working Group Chairs to ensure that
    document authors make modifications in accord with working group
    rough consensus.  Authors/editors are solely chosen by the Chairs
    -- although the views of the working group should be considered --
    and are subject to replacement for a variety of reasons, as the
    Chairs see fit.
 For existing documents that are being adopted by a working group,
 there is a special challenge in the selection of document editors.
 Because the document has already had editors, the question "Are the
 same people appropriate for continuing the task?" is asked.
 Sometimes the answer is yes, but this is not automatic.  The process
 within an IETF working group can be quite different from the process
 that created previous versions.  This well might make it appropriate
 to select one or more new editors, either as additions to the editor
 team or as primary pen-holders (effectively reclassifying the
 previous team as coauthors).
 If the original editors are to continue in their role, the Chairs
 might want to ensure that the editors understand IETF working group
 process; it is likely to be quite different from the process that
 developed earlier versions of the document.  If additional or new
 editors are assigned, the transition can be discussed, including its
 reasons; this is best done as soon as possible.

4. Document History and Stability

 Working group charters sometimes specify an initial set of existing
 documents to use as a basis of the working group's activities.  That
 'basis' can vary considerably, from simple input to working group
 discussion, all the way to an advanced draft adopted by the working
 group and subject only to minimal changes.  The role of a document
 should be explicitly stated in the charter.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 8] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 Within the scope of its charter, a working group is free to create
 new documents.  It is not required that all drafts start as the
 effort of an individual.  Of course, the criteria for brand new
 documents are likely to be the same as for those imported into the
 working group, with the additional and obvious requirement that the
 Working Group Chairs will need to appoint authors/editors before any
 work can progress.  Note that, from time to time, a working group
 will form a design team to produce the first version of a working
 group draft.  Design teams are discussed in Section 6.5 of [RFC2418].
 Work that is brought to the IETF has different levels of completeness
 and maturity, and different timings for having achieved those levels.
 When the IETF charters a group and includes existing material, the
 charter can cast the role of that material in very different ways.
 It can treat it as:
  • no more than a set of ideas, to be used or ignored;
  • a basic design, with all of the actual details still fluid;
  • a rough draft, subject to extensive revision;
  • a solid specification that merely needs review, refinement, and

maybe enhancement;

  • a deployed technology that is best served by trying to protect its

installed base, but with some tolerance for changes that affect

    interoperability;
  • a deployed technology for which protecting the installed base is

essential, including retention of core interoperability.

 These suggest a wide range of possible constraints on working group
 effort.  Technology is brought to the IETF at different points of
 maturity along its life cycle, and the nature of the technology can
 have widely varying utility in developing an Internet standard.
 When technology is brand new, with at most some prototypes done as
 proofs of concept, then significant changes to the specification will
 not necessarily add much to the development and deployment costs.
 However, when the technology is already part of a mature and
 extensive operational deployment, any changes that are incompatible
 are likely to be problematic for that market and can hinder adoption
 of the changes overall.  For example, immediately after the
 development investment is made -- and especially when there has been
 considerable initial deployment but there is still room for quite a
 bit more -- the installed and potential base might not take kindly to
 disruptive standards work that undermines their recent investment.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 9] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 Conversely, even a deployed technology with a solid base might be
 inappropriate to deploy at Internet scale, and while a document
 specifying such a technology might serve as a good starting point on
 which to base a new specification, undermining of the deployed base
 might be completely appropriate.
 In reflecting upon the basis for adopting an existing draft and the
 way it will be used by the working group, it is important to consider
 the document's place in its life cycle, the needs of any installed
 base, and the applicability of the draft's technology, when deciding
 on the constraints to impose on document development.  It will all
 depend on the constraints of the charter and the analysis of the
 working group.

5. Some Issues for Consideration

5.1. Individual I-Ds under WG Care

 Sometimes, a working group facilitates a draft but does not own it or
 formally adopt it.  These are "individual" drafts [Individual].
 As noted in Section 1.1 and reinforced in [ID-Guidelines], the
 convention for identifying an I-D formally under the ownership of a
 working group is by following the naming convention:
                        draft-ietf-<wgname>-...
 By contrast, documents that are still under the control of their
 authors are known as "individual" I-Ds.  When these documents are
 intended for consideration by a specific working group, the
 convention is that the document uses the naming convention as
 follows, where the second element is the last name of one of the
 principal authors.
                     draft-<lastname>-<wgname>...
 Having the working group name following the personal name allows
 tools to associate these drafts with the working group, even though
 the filename identifies them as the work of individuals.
 The working group can choose to apply any of its normal, internal
 working group process management mechanisms to an individual I-D.
 However, matters of ownership, working group final approval, and the
 like are all subject to negotiation amongst the document authors,
 working group, and Area Directors.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 10] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 This is a rare situation, and Working Group Chairs can be assured
 that the Area Directors will want to understand why the document
 could not be adopted and owned by the working group.

5.2. WG Drafts Can Become Individual Drafts

 A working group is not obligated to retain documents it has adopted.
 Sometimes working group efforts conclude that a draft is no longer
 appropriate for working group effort.  If a working group drops a
 draft, then anyone is permitted to pursue it as an Individual or
 Independent Submission, subject to the document's existing copyright
 constraints.

5.3. Competing Drafts

 Engineering for interesting topics often produces competing,
 interesting proposals.  The reasons can be technical aesthetics,
 engineering trade-offs, architectural differences, company economics,
 and the like.  Although it is far more comfortable to entertain only
 one proposal, a working group is free to pursue more than one.  Often
 this is necessary until a clear preference develops.  Sometimes,
 multiple versions are formally published, absent consensus among the
 alternatives.
 It is appealing to ask authors of competing proposals to find a way
 to merge their work.  Where it makes sense to do this, it can produce
 a single, strong specification.  The detailed discussions to merge
 are often better held in a design team than amidst the dynamics of an
 open working group mailing list.  The working group has ultimate
 authority over any decisions, but it is not required that it be
 involved in all the discussions.
 On the other hand, some differences cannot be resolved, and
 attempting a merge can produce a weaker result.  An example of this
 problem of conflicting design goals is discussed in [Heli-Sub],
 noting:
    "Helicopters are great, and so are submarines.  The problem is
    that if you try to build one vehicle to perform two fundamentally
    different jobs, you're going to get a vehicle that does neither
    job well."

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 11] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 Various management efforts can facilitate the handling of competing
 proposals.  Some examples include:
  • Developing a requirements document that is independent of specific

proposals; this can highlight features that are deemed essential

    and distinguish them from features that are of secondary
    importance, and can facilitate a discussion about features without
    reference to specific proposals.
  • Developing a comparison table of the proposals; this can aid

understanding of their differences.

  • Discussing the relative importance and effects of having one

proposal, versus multiple; this can focus people's efforts at

    compromise and encourage a willingness to choose a single
    proposal.
 The problem of competing drafts can be particularly painful when it
 arises in either of two circumstances:
  • If a second proposal appears as a new draft, just as the Chairs

were ready to poll the working group on adoption of the draft

    containing the first proposal, then the authors of the first
    proposal could feel affronted.  It does not follow that the second
    draft was written to be difficult or derail the first: it might
    even include better ideas.  So it is best not to disregard it.
    However, automatically asking the authors to merge their work will
    not necessarily produce a more solid solution and will not
    guarantee faster progress.  This situation will be a judgement
    call in each case, and it might help to ask the working group for
    their opinion: shall the working group adopt one document as a
    starting point and fold in the ideas from the second under the
    control of consensus, or shall the working group wait until the
    authors of both documents have reached agreement?
  • If the working group has already adopted an I-D on a specific

topic, the posting of a new individual I-D on the same topic could

    be seen as an attack on the working group processes or decisions.
    However, posting an I-D is often a good way to put new ideas into
    concrete form, for public consideration and discussion.  The
    Working Group Chairs will want to encourage the working group to
    consider the new proposal.  Shall it be adopted and entirely
    replace the current working group draft?  Shall the new ideas be
    incorporated into the work of the working group through the normal
    editorial process?  Shall the working group adopt a second
    competing solution?  Or shall the new draft be rejected and not
    adopted by the working group?

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 12] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

6. Security Considerations

 Beyond the credibility of the IETF, this document raises no security
 concerns.

7. Acknowledgements

 This document was developed from an IETF tutorial given by A. Farrel
 at an IETF Working Group Chairs lunch [Farrel-Chairs].  L. Anderson
 contributed useful comments.

8. Informative References

 [Approval] IETF, "IETF Internet-Draft Initial Version Approval
            Tracker", (IETF Datatracker),
            <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
            cgi-bin/wg/wg_init_rev_approval.cgi>.
 [Consensus]
            Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", Work
            in Progress, April 2014.
 [Farrel-Chairs]
            Farrel, A., "What is a Working Group ID (and when to adopt
            one)", (IETF 78 WG chairs lunch Material), July 2010,
            <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#>.
 [Heli-Sub]
            Rose, M., "On Helicopters and Submarines", ACM Queue -
            Instant Messaging, Vol. 1, Issue 8, Page 10,
            <http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=966726>.
 [ID-Guidelines]
            Housley, R., Ed., "Guidelines to Authors of Internet-
            Drafts", December 2010,
            <http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt>.
 [ID-Info]  Wijnen, B., Ed., "Checklist for Internet-Drafts (IDs)
            submitted for RFC publication", May 2009,
            <https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html>.
 [IDNITS]   IETF, "IDNITS Tool", 2013,
            <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/>.
 [Individual]
            IESG, "Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents",
            March 2007, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
            ad-sponsoring-docs.html>.

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 13] RFC 7221 Handling of I-Ds by WGs April 2014

 [RFC-Auth-Ed]
            RFC Editor, "RFC Editorial Guidelines and Procedures --
            Author Overload", 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist>.
 [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
            Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
            Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
 [RFC6702]  Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with
            Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules",
            RFC 6702, August 2012.
 [Tao]      Hoffman, P., Ed., "The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to
            the Internet Engineering Task Force", 2012,
            <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

Authors' Addresses

 Adrian Farrel
 Juniper Networks
 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
 Dave Crocker (editor)
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 675 Spruce Drive
 Sunnyvale, CA  94086
 USA
 Phone: +1.408.246.8253
 EMail: dcrocker@bbiw.net

Farrel & Crocker Informational [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7221.txt · Last modified: 2014/04/29 16:55 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki