One document matched: draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt
Differences from draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt
Network Working Group B. Aboba
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
Intended Status: Experimental L. Dondeti
Expires: April 14, 2008 QUALCOMM, Inc.
11 October 2007
Experiment in Study Group Formation within the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.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 April 14, 2008.
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 11 October 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 3
1.1 Requirements ........................................... 4
2. Study Group Formation ........................................ 4
3. The Experiment ............................................... 6
3.1 Success Metrics ......................................... 6
4. Security Considerations ...................................... 7
5. IANA Considerations .......................................... 7
6. References ................................................... 7
6.1 Normative References .................................... 7
6.2 Informative References .................................. 7
Acknowledgments .................................................. 8
Author's Addresses ............................................... 8
Full Copyright Statement ......................................... 9
Intellectual Property ............................................ 9
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 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 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 3]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 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, 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 formation process, known as the Study Group. Study
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 Study 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 Study Group
documents (including the SG Charter and potential WG 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.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 2007
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, 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 a Study Group be formed.
Study 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 a
Study Group after a second BoF is NOT RECOMMENDED.
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 a period of
six months to twelve months, with six months being the default.
While the IESG MAY extend the initial Study Group milestones by an
additional six months, extensions beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED.
The Study 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 a Study 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 Study Group to deliver on the basic milestones in
a timely way. A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones
relating to development of standards track documents or protocol
specifications.
Since the 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
WG are likely to be met if the SG successfully completes the basic
milestones.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 2007
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 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.
Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Study 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 Study Group
charter, the process for formation of a Study Group is identical to
that of a Working Group, including review by the IAB and IESG,
announcement of the potential Study Group, and request for review by
the IETF community. The operating rules of a Study 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, Study Group Charter pages,
etc.) Study Groups are treated identically to Working Groups, with
the exception that Study Group names should include "SG" within the
name (e.g. "EXAMPLESG"), so as to clearly differentiate them from
Working Groups.
Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools
and processes (including PROTO sheparding) as other IETF documents;
this allows feedback to be viewed by Study Group Chairs and
participants, as well as providing additional clarity on next steps.
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 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 Study
Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the
progress made toward Working Group formation. Useful metrics
include:
Progress on Basic Milestones
A Study 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 Study
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 2007
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 Study Group experiment is to avoid a
potential loss of interest among participants, evidence of
continued engagement on the part of Study Group participants based
on mailing list activity is a potential success metric.
Conversely, a Study 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 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.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 2007
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.
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
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.
Aboba & Dondeti Experimental [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Study Group Experiment 11 October 2007
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 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 13:36:56 |