One document matched: draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-02.txt
Problem Statement E. Davies (ed.)
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: February 21, 2004 August 23, 2003
IETF Problem Statement
draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 February 21, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo summarizes perceived problems in the structure, function
and processes of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). We are
attempting to identify these problems, so that they can be addressed
and corrected by the IETF community.
The problems have been digested and categorized from an extensive
discussion which took place on the 'problem-statement' mailing list
from November 2002 to August 2003. The problem list has been further
analyzed to try and determine the root causes, that are at the heart
of the perceived problems: The result will be used to guide the next
stage of the process in the Problem Statement working group which is
to recommend the structures and processes that will carry out the
corrections.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: Issues/Problems in the IETF process . . . . . 3
1.1 Consequences of Past Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 The Aim is Improvement, not Finger-pointing . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Perceived Problems - Consensus on Solutions . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Major Changes between Versions 00 and 01 . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Major Changes between Versions 01 and 02 . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.7 Major Changes between Versions 02 and 03 . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Root Cause Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Participants in the IETF do not have a Common
Understanding of its Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 The IETF does not Consistently use Effective Engineering
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 The IETF has Difficulty Handling Large and/or Complex
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized . . . 13
2.5 The IETF's Workload Exceeds the Number of Fully Engaged
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.1 Lack of Formal Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6 The IETF Management Structure is not Matched to the
Current Size and Complexity of the IETF . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.1 Span of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.2 Workload of the IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.3 Procedural Blockages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6.4 Consequences of Low Throughput in IESG . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6.5 Avoidance of Procedural Ossification . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6.6 Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands . . . . . . . . 18
2.6.7 Excessive Reliance on Personal Relationships . . . . . . . . 19
2.6.8 Difficulty making Technical and Process Appeals . . . . . . 20
2.7 Working Group Practices can make Issue Closure Difficult . . 20
2.8 IETF Participants and Leaders are Inadequately Prepared
for their Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 23
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
1. Introduction: Issues/Problems in the IETF process
Discussions over the last year or more have shown that a significant
number of problems are believed to exist in the way the Internet
Engineering Taskforce (IETF) operates. In advance of trying to change
the IETF procedures and rules to deal with these problems, the IETF
should have a clear, agreed-upon description of what problems we are
trying to solve.
The Problem Statement working group was chartered to create this
document, which contains the description of the problems, and to use
this analysis to suggest processes to address the identified
problems.
Taken in isolation, this document may appear to be exceedingly
negative. Clearly the IETF needs to refresh its management and
processes to address today's challenges, but it should not be
forgotten that the IETF has produced a large body of high quality
work which has lead to an extremely successful, all-pervasive network
infrastructure. Against this background, we should see the current
document as a necessary piece of self-criticism leading to renewal
and continued success. The discussion of the positive aspects has
been deliberately confined to the IETF Problem Resolution Processes
document [5] which considers the core values that the IETF needs to
maintain whilst correcting the problems that participants perceive as
affecting the IETF at present.
The raw material for this document was derived by summarizing the
extensive discussions which took place initially on the 'wgchairs'
mailing list and subsequently on the 'problem-statement' mailing list
from November 2002 through to June 2003, incorporating additional
input from relevant drafts published during this period (see [2], [3]
and [4]) and the minutes of recent plenary discussions. This produced
a, still extensive, list of perceived problems which were classified
into a number of related groups using a classification suggested by
the processes which go on in the IETF.
This document has digested these perceived problems into a small set
of root cause issues, and a short list of subsidiary issues which
appear to be the most pressing items engendered by the root cause.
This list is set out in Section 2.
Section 1.1 gives a short explanation of the thinking that has taken
place in coming to the current view of the root causes.
The original summary of perceived problems has been posted to the
Problem Statement Working Group mailing list so that it can be
referred to in future. Note that it remains classified according the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
original scheme so that the raw data is available if alternative root
cause analysis is needed.
1.1 Consequences of Past Growth
As the problems of the IETF were examined, it became clear that they
are neither new nor are they symptoms of a problem which is novel in
the science of organizations.
The IETF started off as a small, focused organization with a clearly
defined mission and participants who had been working in this area
for a significant period of time. Over the period 1989-1999 the IETF
grew by a factor of ten or more in terms of number of participants,
and in terms of work in progress. The effects of this growth have
been compounded by the extension of the scope of the IETF which makes
the work much more varied. Many of the problems and symptoms appear
to be fundamentally caused by the organization failing to fully adapt
its management structure and processes to its new larger size, and
failing to clearly define its future mission once the initial mission
had been completed or outgrown.
These failures are just those that afflict many small organizations
trying to make the transition from a small organization which can be
run informally and where essentially all participants fully share the
aims, values and motivations of the leadership, to a medium sized
organization where there are too many participants for informal
leadership and later arrivals either do not fully understand or have
a different perception of the ethos of the organization.
Some IETF participants have been aware of these issues for a long
time. Extant evidence dating back to at least 1992 drew similar
conclusions.
1.2 The Aim is Improvement, not Finger-pointing
Many of the problems identified in this memo have been remarkably
persistent over a 15-year period, surviving a number of changes in
personnel. We see them as structural problems, not personnel
problems. No blame for any of the perceived problems should be
directed to any individual, and the sole aim of the review process is
to identify how the IETF can improve itself so that it knows what it
is about and becomes fit for that purpose in the shortest possible
timeframe.
1.3 Perceived Problems - Consensus on Solutions
The working group participants would like emphasize that both the
long list of problems and the root cause issues that we have derived
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
from them are problems that are believed to exist by a significant
constituency, either on the mailing list and/or in private
discussions. We also note that many of these problems appear to be
of long standing, as a very similar list has survived from the
discussions in the first POISED working group that took place prior
to the IETF organisational changes approved in 1992.
We, in line with many contributors to the mailing list, believe that
it is important to try and identify what appear to be the root causes
of the the perceived problems, but trying to prioritize or assign
relative importances to the problems would not be useful: Rough
concensus on an unordered list of real and important root causes will
be sufficient. The root causes identified will provide a guide in
setting up the processes needed to resolve the problems: The
perceived problems can be viewed as multiple symptoms of the root
causes which should provide input to the resolvers in achieving
consensus on solutions to the problems.
1.4 Acknowledgements
Apart from the contributions of all those who provided input on the
problem statement mailing list, the final reduction of the problems
was especially assisted by the following people:
Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
Avri Doria <avri@apocalypse.org> (WG co-chair)
Jeanette Hoffmann <jeanette@wz-berlin.de>
Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> (WG co-chair)
Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>.
Special thanks are due to Margaret Wasserman for extensive reviewing
and contributions to the wording of Section 2.
The early part of the reduction of the problem statement mailing list
input was done by Harald Alvestrand and the latter part by Elwyn
Davies and the team acknowledged above. In total there were something
like 750 extensive and thoughtful contributions (some making several
points). The thread was started by a call for volunteers in helping
draft a problem statement, but quickly turned into a discussion of
what the problems were.
In addition to the editorial team, the following people have provided
additional input and useful feedback on earlier versions of this
document: Harald Alvestrand, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, James
Kempf, John Klensin, John Loughney, Keith Moore.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
1.5 Major Changes between Versions 00 and 01
o Section 1.3 added to clarify intentions of document.
o Section 2.3 added to document additional root cause involving
IETF's difficulties with large and/or complex problems.
o Section 2.6 rewritten in line with mailing list comments.
o Definition of SDO corrected - "Defining" rather than
"Determining".
o Appendix A removed and posted to mailing list to ensure survival,
pending possible conversion into a separate Informational RFC.
o Version 00 was perceived as excessively negative in tone. This
was particularly true of the section headings in Section 2 which
were resolutely absolutist and gave hostages to fortune in the
form of neat sound bites readily accessible to detractors looking
for ready ammunition. Consequently, the language in these
headings has been modified. Additionally, some words have been
added to the introduction noting the past successes of the IETF,
pointing to the analysis of core values in the companion
'processes' draft [5] and positioning this document as a piece of
vital self-criticism presaging effective renewal and rebirth.
1.6 Major Changes between Versions 01 and 02
o The term customer has been replaced by stakeholder when
discussing people generally interested in a specification.
o Section 1.3 revised to further clarify intentions.
o The discussion of architecture in Section 2.1 has been extended to
emphasise the need to provide roadmaps and their road in defining
and recording what the IETF considers appropriate timelines for
development of specifications.
o Section 2.2 has been modified extensively to reflect ideas of
process improvement, the need for metrics and feed forward loops
to avoid repetition of failures of WG and other process.
o Section 2.4 has been added to document the current problems with
the existing three stage standards maturation path.
o Section 2.6 has been extensively rewritten in line with mailing
list comments and to express some additional issues that have
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
arisen including the effect of delays on the start-up of BOFs and
WGs on throughput and the conflicts of interest that might arise
when ADs act as WG chairs.
o New sub-sections have been added to Section 2.6 to document the
excessive workload of IESG members, ossification of existing
procedure due to decay of previous flexibility, the reliance of
the IETF on personal relationships and the need for an appeals
process of last resort (the last of these is still under active
discussion at this time).
o The sub-section of Section 2.6 dealing with Formal Reconition has
been moved to Section 2.5.
o The problems of conflict management and the absence of a strategy
for dealing with it has been added to both Section 2.7 where
conflict can derail a WG and Section 2.8 where the lack of
preparation of WG chairs and ADs for conflict resolution is noted.
1.7 Major Changes between Versions 02 and 03
o A paragraph has been added to Section 2.1 describing the lack of a
forum for validating IETF-wide decisions and documents.
o The bullet point in Section 2.1 documenting that 'The IETF is
unsure of who its stakeholders are' has been reworded to clarify
it.
o The bullet point relating to inter-WG cooperation and
communication in Section 2.3 has been extended.
o The text of the body of Section 2.6.8 which was inadvertently
omitted from v02 has been reinstated.
o A paragraph has been added to Section 2.7 to document the problems
of 'concensus by exhaustion' which can lead to repeated re-opening
of issues and unrepresentative apparent concensus.
o Text has been added to both Section 2.6.6 and Section 2.8 to
further emphasise the problems which participants who are from
other than the North American cultural milieu or who do not speak
English as their first language.
o The paragraph in Section 2.6.6 referring to the possible conflicts
of interest that can arise if an AD is also a WG chair has been
reworded to clarify it.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
2. Root Cause Problems
This section forms the heart of this analysis, and lists the issues
which we believe lie at the core of the problems. Apart from the
first issue which is fundamental, the problems are not necessarily in
priority order, but they will be seen to be interlinked in various
ways.
2.1 Participants in the IETF do not have a Common Understanding of its
Mission
The IETF lacks a clearly defined and commonly understood Mission: As
a result the goals and priorities for the IETF as a whole and any
Working Groups (WGs) that are chartered are also unclear.
The lack of a common mission has many consequences, of which the
principal ones appear to be:
o The IETF is unsure what it is trying to achieve and hence cannot
know what its optimum internal organization should be to achieve
its aims.
o The IETF cannot determine what its 'scope' should be, and hence
cannot decide whether a piece of proposed work is either in-scope
or out-of-scope.
o The IETF is unsure who its stakeholders are. Consequently,
certain groups of stakeholder, who could otherwise provide
important input to the process, have been more or less sidelined
because it has seemed to these stakeholders that the organization
does not give due weight to their input.
o Working Groups can potentially be hijacked by sectional interests
to the detriment of the IETF's mission.
o The misty vision has inhibited the development of roadmaps that
would inform the IETF's stakeholders of our longer term
intentions, as well as restricting the associated architectural
views to an outline top level view which does not fully reflect
the developing nature of the Internet. It would be desirable to
have roadmaps and architectural views for portions of work which
extend beyond a single working group: It may also be the case
that it is no longer possible to fit the whole Internet within a
single architecture.
o The IETF is unable to determine explicitly what effect it desires
to have in the marketplace, and is therefore unable to determine
what requirements of timeliness are appropriate when planning work
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
and setting expectations for stakeholders which will further the
IETF's mission.
o The lack of precision regarding our goals leads to WG charters and
requirements that are poorly thought out and/or not aligned with
the overall architecture. The resulting poorly defined charters
are a major factor in poor quality and/or late deliveries from
some WGs and the total failure of other WGs.
o The IETF needs to avoid focusing on a too-narrow scope of
technology because this would be likely to blinker the IETF's view
of 'the good of the Internet', and will harm the long-term goal of
making the Internet useful to the greatest number stakeholders;
this argues for allowing a relatively wide range of topics to be
worked on in the IETF - cross-fertilization has always been one of
the IETF's strengths.
An additional barrier to achieving a common understanding is that the
IETF does not have a recognized forum in which all stakeholders
participate and in which organization wide concensus might be
reached. Plenary meetings during regular IETF meetings allow a large
cross-section of the community to offer views but there is not
generally sufficient time to achieve concensus and there is no single
mailing list which all stakeholders can be guaranteed to monitor.
The IETF creates standards and is therefore necessarily a Standards
Development Organization (SDO) but many participants would like to
differentiate the IETF and its way of working from the 'conventional'
SDOs which emphasize corporate involvement and mandated delegates.
Externally, the IETF is often placed in the same bracket as these
conventional SDOs, especially by detractors, because the
differentiation in the IETF's mission and processes and the rationale
for those differences are not clear. This can lead to the IETF being
misunderstood by other SDOs which can make communications between
SDOs less effective, harming the IETF's ability to achieve its
mission.
2.2 The IETF does not Consistently use Effective Engineering Practices
For an organization with 'engineering' in its title and participants
who are likely to trot out the statement "Trust me, I'm an engineer!"
when confronted with the need to find a solution to a particularly
knotty problem, the IETF has, at least in some cases, extremely
ineffective Engineering Practices.
A major symptom of this lack is that WGs do not consistently produce
timely, high-quality and predictable output. As discussed in Section
2.1, this problem is exacerbated because the IETF currently finds it
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
difficult to determine what is timely, and hence what are appropriate
deadlines for the delivery of WG output. Some of the contributory
problems which interfere with effective engineering in WGs include:
o Failure to ensure that there is a uniform view in the WG of the
scope of the WG activity, especially the intended purpose of the
solution.
o Failure to identify at an early stage (before the design is
frozen), and/or then to ensure that there is a uniform view in the
WG of the issues that need to be resolved to bring the work to a
satisfactory conclusion.
o Failure to identify and articulate engineering trade-offs that may
be needed to meet the deadlines that the WG has set without
inappropriately reducing the 'fitness for purpose' for the
intended customers.
o Continued refinement of the solution beyond the point at which it
is adequate to meet the requirements placed on it by the intended
purpose.
The IETF standards engineering process is not set up to deliver
iterative process improvement. Particular areas that need
improvement include:
o The charter may not be sufficiently detailed to document the
process and timeline to be followed by the WG. Additional
documents may be needed such as a roadmap or detailed plans.
o Poorly defined success criteria for WGs and individual documents.
o Lack of written guidelines or templates for the content of
documents (as opposed to the overall layout) and matching lists of
review criteria designed to achieve appropriate quality in output.
o Lack of auditing against explicit criteria throughout the
standards development process.
o Lack of metrics to measure the achievement of the desired quality
and the performance of WGs and the wider IETF..
o Lack of an explicit feed forward path to drive the improvement of
the standards development process and success criteria over time
and to avoid repetition of failures that may occur.
o Absence of documented debriefing sessions to assess and record the
successes and failures of WGs (and other processes) so that the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
positive and negative lessons learned can be used to facilitate
future work and improve the processes.
o Lack of criteria for determining when a piece of work is
overrunning and/or is unlikely to be concluded successfully either
at all or within an acceptable time frame: Lack of process for
either extending the time frame, adjusting the scope or
terminating the work item or the whole Working Group.
o Tools to support the engineering process are minimal.
o Despite its commitment to 'running code', the IETF is not
proactive in providing ways for developers to verify their
implementations of IETF standards.
In addition, IETF processes, and Working Group processes in
particular, suffer because commonly accepted Project Management
techniques are not regularly applied to the progress of work in the
organization.
o Project entry, goal setting and tracking processes are all either
missing or implemented less effectively than the norm for
commercial organizations in related activities.
o Charters regularly fail to set sufficiently granular milestones at
which progress of WGs, individuals and documents can be evaluated.
Also WGs often do not make more detailed work plans to refine the
charter plans.
o The acceptable deadlines for finishing a piece of work, and the
criteria used to determine them, are rarely, if ever, documented.
Also the estimates of the time required to complete the work often
differ widely from the time actually taken. The combination of
these factors makes determining the feasibility of delivering
within the required timeframe and then adjusting the scope of the
work to fit the timeframe requirements extremely difficult.
One problem which the IETF does not appear to suffer from is
excessive bureaucracy, in the sense that transfer of information is
generally kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task. It is
important that any changes introduced do not significantly increase
the bureaucratic load whilst still recording sufficient information
to allow process improvement.
Finally, even where the IETF does have Engineering Practices defined,
there are frequently cases where they are ignored or distorted. One
area of perticular concern is the tendency for protocols to be
assessed and issues resolved primarily through static analysis of the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
written specification rather than by practical experiment with
'running code'.
2.3 The IETF has Difficulty Handling Large and/or Complex Problems
The IETF has historically been most successful when dealing with
tightly focused problems that have few interactions with other parts
of the total problem solution.
IETF standardization procedures are optimized for tightly constrained
working groups and are generally less effective if 'engineering in
the large' is needed to reach a satisfactory solution. Engineering in
the large can encompass many aspects of system design including:
Architecture
Frameworks
Security
Internationalization
The IETF has historically standardized protocol components rather
than complete systems but as we have learned more about the ways in
which systems on the Internet interact, design of components needs to
take into account more and more external constraints, and the
understanding of these constraints tends to require more engineering
in the large.
Part of the cause of this difficulty may be that the formal reporting
structure of the IETF emphasises communication between the IESG
through the ADs and the WGs and does not place much reliance on
inter-WG communications:
o The IETF is not consistently effective at resolving issues that
cross WG or area boundaries.
o The IETF does not posess effective formal mechanisms for inter-WG
cooperation, coordination or communication, including the handling
of dependencies between deliverables and processes specified in in
WG charters.
o The IETF does not have an effective means for defining
architectures and frameworks that will shape the work of multiple
WGs.
A possible consequence of the need for more engineering in the large
is that protocol specifications have become larger, and consequently
take longer to develop. Some people perceive that this is because
the IESG has tended to require protocol specifications to specify an
entire system, instead of simple component protocols, leading to
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
feature bloat and applicability only to a narrow range of
applications (see also Section 2.4). On the other hand, others
believe that the IESG has approved simple component protocols without
an adequate understanding of the systems and contexts in which the
protocols might be used. These problems appear to be two further
aspects of the general problem that the IETF has with handling large
and/or complex systems.
2.4 Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized
The current hierarchy of Proposed, Draft and Full Standard maturity
levels for specifications is no longer being used in the way that was
envisioned when the stratification was originally proposed. In
practice, the IETF currently has a one-step standards process that
subverts the IETF's preference for demonstrating effectiveness
through running code in multiple interoperable implementations and
compresses the process that previously allowed specifications to
mature as experience was gained with actual implementations:
o Relatively few specifications are now progressed beyond Proposed
Standard (PS) to Draft Standard (DS) level, and even fewer to Full
Standard (FS).
o It is widely perceived that the IESG has 'raised the (quality)
bar' that standards have to pass to be accorded PS status.
Protocol developers may be required to specify a complete system
rather than an interface in order for their specification to be
approved as a PS (see also Section 2.3).
o In spite of the apparently higher quality hurdle which has to be
cleared to achieve PS, implementation or deployment experience is
still not required, so that the IETF's guiding principle of 'rough
concensus and running code' has less chance to be effective.
o There appears to be a vicious circle in operation in which vendors
tend to deploy protocols that have reached PS as if they were
ready for full production, rather than accepting that standards at
PS level are still under development and could expected to alter
after feature, performance and interoperability tests in limited
pilot installations, as was originally intended. The enthusiam of
vendors to achieve a rapid time to market seems to have encouraged
the IETF in general and the IESG in particular to attempt to
ensure that specifications at PS are ready for prime time, and
that subsequent modifications will be minimal as it progresses to
DS and FS, assuming effort can be found to create the necessary
applicability and interoperability reports that are needed..
o The three stage hierarchy is, accordingly, seen to be excessive.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
o There is no formal bug reporting or tracking system in place for
IETF specifications.
o The periodic review of protocols at PS and DS levels specified in
[1] are not being carried out, allowing protocols to persist in
these lower maturity levels for extended periods of time, whereas
the process would normally expect them to progress or be relegated
to Historic status.
o No individual or body is given the task of 'maintaining' a
specification after the original WG has closed down.
Specifications are generally only updated when a need for a new
version is perceived. No attempt is normally made to correct bugs
in the specification (whether they affect operation or not) and
the specification is not updated to reflect parts of the
specification that have fallen into disuse or were, in fact, never
implemented. This is in part because the current procedures would
require a standard to revert to the PS maturity level even when
specification maintenance is carried out which can be demonstrated
to have no or minimal effect on an existing protocol at DS or FS
level.
2.5 The IETF's Workload Exceeds the Number of Fully Engaged Participants
There are a number of respects in which IETF participants and
contributors appear to have become less fully engaged with the IETF
processes than previously, for example:
o Although there may be large attendances at many WG meetings, in
many cases 5% or less of the participants have read the drafts
which are under discussion or have a bearing on the decisions to
be made.
o Commitments to write, edit or review a document are not carried
out in a timely fashion.
o Little or no response is seen when a request for 'last-call'
review is issued either at WG or IETF level.
Whilst this might be put down to contributors having less time
available in their work schedule during the downturn of the last two
years, this is not the whole story because there were signs of this
effect back at the height of the boom in 2000.
This problem exacerbates the problems which the IETF has had with
timely delivery and may weaken the authority of IETF specifications
if decisions are seen to be taken by badly informed participants and
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
without widespread review.
2.5.1 Lack of Formal Recognition
Beyond RFC Authorship, WG Chair positions, Directorate positions, or
IESG and IAB membership, the IETF does not offer formal recognition
of contributions to the IETF. This potentially acts as a disincentive
to continued engagement and can lead to useful and effective
participants leaving because they cannot obtain any recognition (the
only currency the IETF has to pay participants), which they use to
fuel their own enthusiasm and help justify their continued attendance
at IETF meetings to cost constrained employers. Note: Using
Leadership positions as rewards for good work would probably be
damaging to the IETF. This paragraph is meant to indicate the need
for other types of rewards.
2.6 The IETF Management Structure is not Matched to the Current Size and
Complexity of the IETF
The management and technical review processes currently in place were
adequate for the older, smaller organization, but are apparently not
scalable to the current size of the organization. The form of the
organization has not been significantly modified since 1992, but that
is now a long time ago, and the organization has undergone
considerable further growth as well as extending the scope of its
activities as the Internet has become more complex.
2.6.1 Span of Authority
Overt authority in the IETF is concentrated in the small number of
people sitting on the IESG at that time. Existing IETF processes work
to funnel tasks on to this small number of people (primarily the ADs
in the IESG). This concentration slows up the process and puts a
very large load of responsibility on to the shoulders of these people
who are required to act as the senior management for Working Group
(WG) chairs as well as acting as quality backstops for the large
number of documents issued by the IETF. The situation has not been
helped by the widening of the scope of IETF which has resulted in
somewhat more WGs and a need for a very broad spectrum of knowledge
within the set of ADs.
2.6.2 Workload of the IESG
With the current structure of the IETF and IESG, it is clear that the
workload imposed on each of the Area Directors (ADs) is well beyond
the capabilities of a single person.
The current job description for an AD encompasses at least the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
following tasks:
o Interacting with WGs
o Understanding network and computer technology generally, and their
own area in detail
o Cross-pollinating between groups
o Coordinating with other areas
o Potentially, managing their Area Directorate team
o Effectively providing technical management, people-management and
project supervision for their WGs
o Reading (or at least skimming) every formal document which the
IETF produces, and having an opinion on all of them, as well as
all the Internet Drafts produced by the WGs in the area, and
understanding the interactions between all these specifications.
Given the number of WGs which are now active, the increasing
complexity of both the work being undertaken and the technology in
general together with the volume of documents being produced makes it
clear that only superhumans can be expected to do this job well. To
make matters worse, these tasks are, in theory, a 'part time'
occupation as ADs will normally have a conventional job with the IETF
activities as just one part of their job specification. This view has
been reinforced by recent resignations from the IESG citing the size
of the workload as a primary factor.
The malign effects of this overload include:
o Wear on the IESG: The IESG members are overworked which is bad
for their health, humor and home life, and may also result in
conflicts with their employers if the IETF work impacts on the
IESG member's performance of their 'day job'.
o Unhappiness in the IETF: IETF stakeholders perceive that IESG
members are responding slowly, are not fully up-to-date with their
technology, fail to pro-actively manage problems in their WGs and
are unable to keep communication channels with other groups open.
o Recruiting shrinkage: The number of people who can imagine taking
on an IESG post is steadily decreasing. It is largely limited to
people who work for large companies who can afford to second IESG
members to the IETF for the duration of their appointments. In the
current business climate, fewer companies are able to justify the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
preemption of an important engineering and business resource for a
significant period of time and are more likely to put forward
'standards professionals' than their best engineers.
2.6.3 Procedural Blockages
The current procedural rules combined with the management and quality
roles of the ADs can lead to situations where WGs or document authors
believe that one or two ADs are deliberately blocking the progress of
a WG document without good reason or public justification. Appeal
processes in these circumstances are limited and the only sanction
that could be applied to the relevant ADs is recall, which has almost
always been seen to be out of scale with the apparent offence and
hence almost never invoked. This perception of invulnerability has
led to a view that the IESG in general and the ADs in particular are
insufficiently accountable for their actions to their WGs and the
IETF at large, although the recent introduction of the Internet Draft
Tracker tool makes it easier to determine if and how a document has
become blocked, and hence to take appropriate steps to release it.
2.6.4 Consequences of Low Throughput in IESG
If documents are inappropriately (or even accidentally) delayed or
blocked as a result of IESG (in)action, this can cause much
frustration inside the organization, a perception of disunity seen
from outside the organization and delay of standards possibly to the
point where they are too late to match market requirements: Work
which has been properly authorized as being within scope of the IETF
and properly quality checked during development should almost never
come up against such a blockage.
Delay in authorizing a BOF or chartering a new WG can delay the start
of the process with similar effects.
IESG delays must not be used to disguise or excuse slow work in WGs
and ongoing cooperation between the ADs, WG chairs and WG members is
essential to improving throughput.
2.6.5 Avoidance of Procedural Ossification
The systems and processes used by the IETF are generally designed
around having firm general principles and considerable IESG
discretion within those principles. It appears that the IETF is
showing a disturbing tendency to turn IESG 'rules of convenience'
into rigid strictures that cannot be violated or deviated from.
Up to now, IETF discussions of procedures have been driven by a model
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
in which the procedural BCPs construct a framework for doing work,
but the details of the framework are left for the IESG to fill in.
When issues or crises have arisen, the IETF has generally avoided
making specific procedural changes to compensate, instead realizing
that we could not anticipate all cases and that 'fighting the last
war' is not a good way to proceed.
This can only continue to work if the participants continue to trust
the IESG to act fairly in filling in the details and making
appropriate exceptions, without a great deal of debate, when it is
clearly desirable. At present the IETF appears to have lost sight of
this flexibility, and is burying itself in procedures that rapidly
move from organizational conveniences to rigid and immutable
shibboleths.
2.6.6 Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands
Until the last couple of years, successive IETF Nominating Committees
have chosen to give heavy weighting to continuity of IESG and IAB
membership. Thus, the IETF appeared to have created an affinity group
system which tended to re-select the same leaders from a limited pool
of people who had proved competent and committed in the past.
Members of this affinity group tend to talk more freely to each other
and former members of the affinity group - this may be because the
affinity group has also come to share a cultural outlook which
matches the dominant cultural ethos of the IETF (North American,
English speaking). Newcomers to the organization and others outside
the affinity group are reluctant to challenge the apparent authority
of the extended affinity group during debates and consequently
influence remains concentrated in a relatively small group of people.
This reluctance may also be exacerbated if participants come from a
different cultural background than the dominant one. Such
participants also tend to find it more difficult to follow the rapid
and colloquial speaking style of native English speakers, and may
consequently be effectively excluded from the discussion even if
maximum assistance is available by such means as real time Jabber
logs and extensive text on presentation slides. Even on mailing
lists, people from other cultures may be reluctant to be as
forthright as is often the case in discussions between North
Americans; also, a person whose first language is not English may be
daunted by the volume of mail that can occur on some mailing lists
and the use of colloquialisms or euphemisms may cause
misunderstandings if correspondents are not aware of the problem.
A further instance of the problems of concentration of influence
potentially occurs when, from time to time, ADs have acted as WG
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
chairs: Clearly, a potential conflict of interest arises in
discussions between the IESG and any WG with an AD chair. Whilst care
is usually taken to have a newly selected AD vacate any WG chair
positions which might be held in his or her own area, the conflict
can arise on the occasions when an AD has been used as the chair of a
WG because it is clearly the right (or only possible) solution for
the WG from an engineering and know-how position. Also, given the
known problem of workload for IESG members, there must be doubts as
to whether an AD can or ought to be taking on this extra load.
2.6.7 Excessive Reliance on Personal Relationships
The IETF is an intensely personal and individualistic organization.
Its fundamental structure is based on individuals as actors, rather
than countries, organizations or companies as in most other SDOs.
This is also reflected in how the IETF gets its work done: The NOMCOM
process, the WG Chair selection processes and the activities of WGs
are all reliant on personal knowledge of the capabilities of other
individuals and an understanding built on experience of what they can
be expected to deliver, given that there are almost no sanctions that
can be applied beyond not asking them to do a similar task again.
The relationship works best when it is two way - the person being
asked to perform a task needs to be able to rely on the behavior of
the person doing the asking.
In essence, the IETF is built on a particular kind of one-to-one
personal trust relationships. This is a very powerful model but it
does not scale well because this trust is not transitive. Just
because you trust one person, it does not mean that you trust (i.e.
know the capabilities of and can rely on) all the people that person
trusts in turn.
The disruption caused when one set of relationships has to be
replaced by another is clearest when an AD is replaced. The IETF
does not keep personnel records and written plans and formal process
documentation is very sparse, so that incoming ADs have little
information on which to base new relationships with WG chairs or
Directorate members not already known to them.
A new AD has to build or bring along his or her set of trusted
individuals. The AD will tend to prefer individuals from this set as
WG chairs, unless there is a suitable outsider who was part of the
team that brought the WG idea to the IETF. This tends to limit the
AD's field of choice, particularly when asking for a 'stabilizing',
'advising' or 'process' chair to work with an enthusiatic newcomer in
a difficult area. A breakdown of an established relationship (such as
between an AD and a WG chair) can be very damaging to the work of the
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
IETF, and it may not be immediately obvious to outsiders.
Another consequnce of the reliance on personal relationships is that
the IETF has very little institutional 'memory' outside of the
memories of the people in the process at a given time. This makes it
more likely that failures will be repeated and makes process
improvement more difficult (see Section 2.2).
2.6.8 Difficulty making Technical and Process Appeals
When an individual thinks that the process has produced a result that
is harmful to the Internet or thinks that IETF processes have not
been adhered to, there is no mechanism to aid that individual in
seeking to change that result.
2.7 Working Group Practices can make Issue Closure Difficult
The IETF appears to be poor at making timely and reasonable decisions
that can be guaranteed to be adhered to during the remainder of a
process or until shown to be incorrect.
Participants are frequently allowed to re-open previously closed
issues just to replay parts of the previous discussion without
introducing new material. This may be either because the decision
has not been clearly documented or it may be a maneuver to try to get
a decision changed because the participant did not concur with the
consensus originally. In either case revisiting decisions stops the
process moving forward, and in the worst cases can completely derail
a working group. On the other hand, the decision making process must
allow discussions to be re-opened if significant new information
comes to light or additional experience is gained which appears to
justify alternative conclusions for a closed issue.
One cause that can lead to legitimate attempts to re-open an
apparently closed issue is the occurrence of 'concensus by
exhaustion'. The concensus process can be subverted by off-topic or
overly dogmatic mail storms which can lead to the exclusion of
knowledgeable participants who are unable to devote the time to
needed to counter the mail storm. The consequence may be an
unrepresentative and unsatisfactory concensus which will tend to be
re-opened, often leading to a repeat of the discussions.
A single vocal individual or small group can be a particular
challenge to WG progress and the authority of the chair. The IETF
does not have a strategy for dealing effectively with an individual
who is inhibiting progress, whilst ensuring that an individual who
has a genuine reason for revisiting a decision is allowed to get his
or her point across.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
2.8 IETF Participants and Leaders are Inadequately Prepared for their
Roles
Participants and leaders at all levels in the IETF need to be taught
the principles of the organization (Mission and Architecture(s)) and
trained in carrying out the processes which they have to use in
developing specifications, etc.
Part of the reason for the lack of training in the principles of the
organization is that there is not currently an explicit formulation
of these principles that is generally agreed by all stakeholders.
Section 2.1 identifies that this shortage is a major problem.
The IETF currently has voluntary and inconsistent processes for
educating its participants which may be why significant numbers of
participants seem to fail to conform to the proper principles when
working in the IETF context.
The people in authority have generally been steeped in the principles
of the IETF (as they see them) and first-time non-compliance by newer
participants is sometimes treated as an opportunity for abuse rather
than by recognition of a training failure.
The IETF culture of openess also tends to tolerate participants, who,
whilst understanding the principles of the IETF, disagree with them
and actively ignore them. This can be confusing for newer
participants, but they need to be made aware that the IETF does not
exclude such people. The IETF does not currently have a strategy for
dealing with the conflicts that can result from participants who
disagree with the principles of the organization.
Lack of training compounded with the perceived concentration of
influence in the affinity group documented in Section 2.6.6 can lead
to newcomers being ignored during discussions, consequently being
ineffective either in their own eyes or their employers and so
leaving the IETF.
In addition, some participants are not aware of the problems that
participants, for whom English is not their first language, may have
with rapid speaking and the use of colloquialisms in both spoken and
written communication. They are also not always aware of the possible
cultural nuances that may make full participation more difficult for
those who do not share the same outlook.
3. Security Considerations
This document does not of itself have security implications, but it
may have identified problems which raise security considerations for
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
other work. Any such implications should be considered in the
companion document which will be produced setting out how the IETF
should set about solving the problems identified.
4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations defined in this document.
Normative References
[1] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
Informative References
[2] Huston, G. and M. Rose, "A Proposal to Improve IETF
Productivity", draft-huston-ietf-pact-00 (work in progress),
October 2002.
[3] Blanchet, M., "Suggestions to Streamline the IETF Process",
draft-blanchet-evolutionizeietf-suggestions-00 (work in
progress), November 2002.
[4] Hardie, T., "Working Groups and their Stuckees",
draft-hardie-wg-stuckees-00 (work in progress), February 2003.
[5] Davies (co-ed.), E. and J. Hofmann (co-ed.), "IETF Problem
Resolution Processes", draft-ietf-problem-process-02 (work in
progress), August 2003.
Author's Address
Elwyn B. Davies
Nortel Networks
Harlow Laboratories
London Road
Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA
UK
Phone: +44 1279 405 498
EMail: elwynd@nortelnetworks.com
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 assignees.
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
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IETF Problem Statement August 2003
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.
Davies (ed.) Expires February 21, 2004 [Page 24]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:19:14 |