One document matched: draft-aboba-sg-experiment-00.txt
Network Working Group B. Aboba
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
Intended Status: Experimental L. Dondeti
Expires: December 29, 2007 QUALCOMM, Inc.
1 July 2007
Experiment in Study Group Formation within the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
draft-aboba-sg-experiment-00.txt
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes an RFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group
formation process, known as the Study Group. Study 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. Study 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.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 3
1.1 Requirements ........................................... 4
2. Study Group Formation ........................................ 4
3. The Experiment ............................................... 6
4. Security Considerations ...................................... 6
5. IANA Considerations .......................................... 6
6. References ................................................... 6
6.1 Normative References .................................... 6
6.2 Informative References .................................. 6
Acknowledgments .................................................. 7
Author's Addresses ............................................... 7
Full Copyright Statement ......................................... 8
Intellectual Property ............................................ 8
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
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 [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 3]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
- 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, 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 additional Birds of a
Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.
However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential
Working Group in question for months or even years, without providing
potential Working Group participants with timely updates on the
status of the potential Working Group or insight into IESG or IAB
concerns.
This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
Working Group formation process, known as the Study Group. Study
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. Study Groups MAY be formed
by the IESG when there is evidence of clear interest in a topic on
the part of IETF participants and end-users, but other criteria
relating to Working Group formation (including creation of a
satisfactory Charter) have not yet been met. Since this Study Group
experiment is not intended as a substitute for the existing Working
Group formation process, Study Groups SHOULD be formed only in
situations where the prerequisites for formation of a Working Group
have not been met, or are not likely to be met as the result of a
first or second Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session.
Study Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for
Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to
conclude within a six to twelve month time frame, with limited
opportunities for milestone extension. This Study Group experiment
does not alter the Working Group formation guidelines described in
[RFC2418] Section 2.1, the processes relating to BoFs [BOF] or the
Internet Standards Process described in [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 Study Group documents
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
(including the Charter) are reviewed and comments are tracked using
existing tools and processes, feedback is available to Study Group
chairs and authors, providing for transparency and accountability.
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. Study Group Formation
If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF and
end-user community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working
Group formation criteria outlined in [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not
yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed.
Since the goal of a Study Group is to put in place the prerequisites
for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than might otherwise be
possible, Study Groups SHOULD initially be chartered for completion
within six to twelve months. While the IESG MAY extend the initial
Study Group milestones by an additional six months, extensions beyond
this are NOT RECOMMENDED. The Charter for a Study Group SHOULD
include at least the following milestones:
o Development of a Working Group Charter.
o Development of a document providing answers to the
Working Group formation criteria described in [RFC2418]
Section 2.1.
However, the IESG MAY also include additional milestones within a
Study Group charter, such as development of a problem statement or
requirements document and/or completion of a literature review, as
long as these additional milestones do not compromise the ability of
the Study Group to deliver on the basic milestones in a timely way.
Other than the abbreviated charter, the process for formation of a
Study Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including
announcement of the potential Study Group and request for feedback
from the IETF community. As with a Working Group, formation of a
Study Group requires the appointment of a Study Group Chair, and a
well defined set of Working Group formation criteria (agreement on
the Charter, review of the formation criteria, problem statement or
requirements document, etc. ) Review of Study Group documents will
utilize the same tracking tools and process as other IETF documents;
this allows feedback to be viewed by Study Group Chairs and
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
participants, as well as providing additional clarity on next steps.
3. The Experiment
This experiment runs for a period of 18 months. During the
experiment period, the IESG MAY approve formation of one or more
Study Groups.
The IESG MUST inform the community in a public statement of any
decisions for Study Group formation approved under this experiment.
Such a statement SHOULD include a description of specific Study Group
that was formed.
4. Security Considerations
This document describes an experiment in the formation of Study
Groups. It has no security considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
This draft requires no action by IANA.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2026]
Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC
2026, October 1996.
[RFC2418]
Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3933]
Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process Experiments",
BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004.
6.2. Informative References
[BOF]
Narten, T., "Considerations for Having a Successful BOF", draft-
narten-successful-bof-02 (work in progress), March 2007.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas
Narten and John Klensin for valuable input.
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
Phone: +1 858-845-1267
Email: ldondeti@qualcomm.com
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 1 July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 13:44:21 |