One document matched: draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt
Internet-Draft M. Wasserman, Editor
Document: draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt Wind River
Expires: November 2003 May 2003
IETF Problem Resolution Processes
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [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.
Abstract
This document suggests processes to address the problems identified
in the IETF Problem Statement.
This document decomposes each of the problems described in the
problem statement into a few areas for improvement, categorizes
those areas into longer-term and near-term problems, and suggests
processes to address each area.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 1
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo...............................................1
Abstract..........................................................1
Copyright Notice..................................................1
Table of Contents.................................................2
1 Introduction..............................................3
2 IETF Core Values..........................................4
2.1 Non-Core Values...........................................6
3 Building on our Success...................................7
4 Problem Decomposition.....................................9
4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem..........................9
4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem........9
4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem............10
4.4 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem..................10
4.5 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem..........11
4.6 Decomposition of the Decision Process Problem............13
4.7 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem................13
5 Process Recommendations..................................15
5.1 Near-Term Improvements...................................15
5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes..............16
5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools.................17
5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training..........................17
5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication...........17
5.2 Longer-term Improvements.................................17
5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group...........................18
5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables...................18
5.2.1.2 Internal WG Management...................................19
5.2.2 IETF Improvement WG Oversight............................19
5.2.2.1 IESG-Directed Approach...................................20
5.2.2.2 ISOC-Directed Approach...................................20
5.2.3 IETF Improvement WG Chair Selection......................20
6 Conclusion...............................................22
7 Security Considerations..................................23
8 Normative References.....................................23
9 Informative References...................................23
10 Acknowledgements.........................................23
11 Editor's Contact Information.............................24
12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG....25
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 2
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
1 Introduction
This document suggests processes to address several problems facing
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that have been described
in the IETF Problem Statement [IETFPROB].
This document begins with a discussion of the core values of the
IETF and a reminder of the many good things about the IETF that we
donĘt want to lose in the process of solving our problems.
We then decompose each of the problems described in the problem
statement into a few areas for improvement, and organize those
areas for improvement into two categories:
- Areas that can be addressed in the near-term, via discrete,
minimally disruptive changes or improvements.
- Areas that can only be addressed by longer-term efforts, via
major changes to our organizational structure or processes.
It is suggested that the IETF work on these two classes of
improvements in parallel, so that we can enjoy some near-term
benefits while more major, longer-term improvements are being
considered and executed.
Concrete suggestions are included for how we can begin or continue
work on near-term improvements.
The document then offers options for how to organize and manage our
longer-term efforts. The IETF, through the Problem Statement
Working Group (problem WG) should consider these options and make
decisions about how to organize and manage our longer-term
improvements.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 3
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
2 IETF Core Values
As we consider changes to the IETF processes and organizational
structure, it is important to keep in mind the things about the
IETF that we don't want to change -- our sense of purpose, and the
core values that give the IETF its unique identity.
The IETF has a rich history and tradition, full of memorable quotes
that capture our spirit and values. Two of the most memorable are:
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough
consensus and running code." -- Dave Clark
"Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept."
-- Jon Postel
At two IESG plenary meetings in 2002, the chair of the IETF, Harald
Alvestrand, presented the purpose and core values of the IETF.
These presentations were well received by the community and serve
as a useful basis for a discussion of our purpose and core values.
At the IESG plenary in London in July 2002, it was stated that the
purpose of the IETF is to "produce high quality, relevant, and
timely technical standards for the Internet". Our organizational
structure and processes should be judged by how well they help us
to achieve that purpose.
At the following IESG plenary in Atlanta, Georgia in November 2002,
five core values were presented [COREVAL]:
"Cares for the Internet"
As its name implies, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
focuses on Internet-related activities. We care about the
Internet, and our standards work and operational activities are
intended to improve the utility, scalability and availability of
the Internet.
The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want
the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as
decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of
the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the
technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that
we choose to create.
The IETF community also cares about making the Internet model a
viable business proposition. People who choose to offer Internet
products and services that fit with our core values should be able
to do so with maximum benefit and minimum amount of fuss.
The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe
that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics,
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 4
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
communication and education, will help us to build a better human
society.
"Technically Competent"
We pride ourselves on our technical competence, and our processes
are intended to ensure the high technical quality and utility of
our standards and other documents.
"Open Process"
Openness is a core attribute of the IETF. Our standards and other
documents are developed in an open process, which allows us to
achieve wide input and review.
Anyone can participate in defining Internet standards in the IETF.
We do not require corporate membership. We make final decisions on
mailing lists, not at face-to-face meetings, so anyone with
Internet access can contribute. All IETF documents are freely
available, whether they are active working documents or finished
specifications. Individuals as well as working groups may submit
Internet-Drafts for consideration as Internet standards.
"Volunteer Core"
With some honorable exceptions, the IETF community consists of
people who are employed elsewhere, and much of our IETF work is
directly related to the business of our employers. However, many
of us take on additional roles in the IETF, beyond those directly
sponsored by our employers. We participate in the IETF as
individuals, because we want to work for the good of the Internet
community and its inhabitants.
The IETF community is committed to the continued success of the
Internet, not to the continued success of the IETF itself. The
IETF is only worthwhile if it can effectively produce high quality,
relavent standards that benefit the Internet.
Openness and individual participation are two parts of an
interlocking structure that is the strength of the IETF. The
openness permits all segments of the Internet community to
participate, without demanding that they meet any qualifying
criteria, such as belonging to a member company. The individual
participation allows us to focus on a wider set of "success
criteria" than the health and well-being of our individual
employers.
Ultimately there is no conflict between the volunteer nature of the
IETF and employer-sponsored participation, because we believe that
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 5
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
the long-term survival and growth of the Internet benefits
ourselves, our societies and our employers.
"Rough Consensus and Running Code"
It is an inherent part of the IETF culture that we base our
decision making on rough consensus of the community, developed
through open discussion.
We also value running code as an indication of specification
quality and completeness, and we require interoperable
implementations for promotion in the standards process.
2.1 Non-Core Values
Understanding our core values also helps us to understand the long-
standing features of the IETF that we can change without
compromising our values or sacrificing our unique identity.
During the November 2002 IESG Plenary, Harald Alvestrand also
presented the following "non-core values" [COREVAL]:
- The division into WGs and Areas
- The three-step standards process
- The ASCII format for RFCs and I-Ds
- The format of IETF meetings
- The structure of WG mailing lists
- The powers of the IESG and IAB
These things were designed to help us achieve our goals in a way
that is consistent with our core values. If they are no longer
effective, we can and should change them.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 6
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
3 Building on our Success
While focusing on our operational problems, we shouldn't forget
that the IETF is a very successful organization. We are
responsible for some of the most widely used communications
standards in the world, and we have contributed to the creation and
growth of the Internet, one of the greatest technical and social
achievements of our time.
It is important to consider that:
- Good times hide problems;
- Bad times hide successes.
In good times, it is easy to succeed despite operational
inefficiencies, so organizations tend to ignore operational
problems and focus on successes. In bad times, organizations can
become overly critical of their own structure and processes,
blaming the organization for problems that are actually caused by
outside forces.
We are currently suffering difficult times in the IETF and
throughout the communications industry. The IETF should be careful
not to fall into the trap of blaming our own organizational
structure or processes for the effects of industry-wide changes,
such as:
- Economic issues in the global communications industry, which
are causing increased scrutiny regarding expenses and
return-on-investment. These same factors are causing job
changes and uncertainty for many IETF participants.
- The commercialization of the Internet, which has drastically
increased the financial impacts of standardization.
- The convergence of the datacom and telecom sectors of the
communications industry, which has led to an influx of
experienced people into the IETF with a different culture
and industry perspective.
Although it is important to recognize and correct the serious
organizational problems currently facing the IETF, many of these
problems have existed for years, and the IETF has been successful
in spite of these issues. We should not overreact to these issues
with sweeping revolutionary changes to the IETF structure and
processes. Instead, we should focus on developing a culture of
continuous operational improvement through which we can evolve our
organizational structure and processes to make them more effective.
We should take this opportunity to develop the mechanisms and
processes that we can use to continually improve our organizational
effectiveness, both in good times and bad times.
The IETF currently has a lot of valuable work underway, and care
should be taken not to disrupt or delay that work while we address
our organizational problems.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 7
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
The IETF is also fortunate to have a large number of extremely
talented and dedicated individuals that serve in formal and
informal leadership roles throughout the IETF. We should be
careful not to alienate or disenfranchise our leaders and key
contributors while making organizational or process changes.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 8
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
4 Problem Decomposition
The problem statement document lists seven root cause problems
currently facing the IETF:
- Participants in the IETF do not share a common understanding
of its mission
- The IETF does not consistently use effective engineering
practices
- The IETF has difficulty handling large and/or complex problems
- The IETF's workload exceeds the number of fully engaged
participants
- The IETF management structure is not matched to the current
size and complexity of the IETF
- Working group practices can make issue closure difficult
- IETF participants and leaders are inadequately prepared for
their roles
Each of these problems can be decomposed into several areas for
improvement, some of which can be addressed in the near-term while
others require longer-term consideration.
It is also important to note that the problem statement lists
perceived problems. Although all of these problems have been
perceived by some groups of IETF participants, not all of these
problems are present in all parts of the IETF, and some of these
problems may in fact be symptoms of other problems. This is why it
is important, as part of our problem resolution processes, to
develop metrics and baselines that will allow us to judge the
effectiveness of any organizational or process changes.
4.1 Decomposition of Mission Problem
In order to determine the best organization and processes for the
IETF to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals, we need to reach
a common understanding of the mission and goals of the IETF.
Although it should be possible to understand the mission and goals
of the IETF with no disruption to our current processes, it would
only be valuable as part of a longer-term effort to align the
organization and priorities of the IETF with its mission.
As part of understanding our mission, the IETF will need to
identify our "customers" and understand how we serve them. We also
need to define our goals and priorities, and learn how to recognize
and measure our own progress and success.
4.2 Decomposition of the Engineering Practices Problem
The IETF lacks effective engineering practices in three major
areas:
1. Effective mechanisms for issue tracking and/or document
change control.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 9
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
2. Effective processes to ensure quality throughout the
development of IETF work items, such as intermediate
acceptance criteria or formal review processes.
3. Sufficient focus on milestones, and recognition or rewards
for individuals or groups that achieve timely, high quality
execution.
Some of these areas (issue tracking and revision control) would
require that tools are made available to WG chairs and editors, and
that IETF participants (at various levels) are educated in how to
use them.
Other areas concern the internal processes of IETF WGs, and would
require documentation and adoption of effective engineering
processes within IETF WGs.
There is also a more fundamental issue with the IETF's engineering
practices. Although our current standards track contains three
levels of maturity (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard and Full
Standard), we do not have sufficient differentiation regarding the
quality and completeness of documents required at each stage. The
bar is set very high for publication at Proposed Standard, and very
few documents advance beyond this stage. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have
IETF consensus that this is a problem?]
Although we should consider a longer-term process to revamp our
standards-track document processes, this effort will be mutually
dependent on the outcome of any IETF reorganization effort, as
document approval is tightly tied to roles and responsibilities
within the organization.
4.3 Decomposition of the Complex Problems Problem
The IETF has effective mechanisms for dealing with well-defined
problems of limited scope. These problems are well handled in IETF
WGs, where experts in a given technology can convene and solve the
problems specific to that technology. However, we are much less
effective at resolving complex problems that affect more than one
IETF WG or area.
Today most communication between WG chairs, especially across area
boundaries, goes through the IESG. Some inter-WG or inter-area
problems could be alleviated by greater communication and
coordination directly between the chairs of related WGs.
Other complex problems involve higher-level issues, such as unified
architecture or highly-coordinated multi-area efforts. As part of
any IETF reorganization, we should consider management structures
that will allow us to achieve a better focus on architectural and
cross-area issues.
4.4 Decomposition of the Engagement Problem
The engagement problem can be decomposed into two primary issues:
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 10
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
- Too few people participate in the development and review of
WG documents.
- People lose interest in longer-lived WGs, especially when
protocols take a very long time to develop.
When too few people, or people representing too few areas of
expertise, review WG documents this can result in poor quality
output. We need to find ways to increase the effectiveness of
document review at all levels.
Quality processes based entirely on a gatekeeper at the end,
whether that gatekeeper is the IESG or a WG review board, tend to
result in a lower focus on quality by other participants. So, it
is possible that instituting better quality processes throughout
document development, including acceptance criteria and review at
several stages, would increase the focus of WG participants on
document quality.
Also, when a document is returned by the IESG to the WG, clearer
reasons could be given, with the goal of educating the WG to help
them reach a speedy resolution. Such education might also help
document authors and editors to avoid similar mistakes in the
future. Today, individual IESG members are responsible for too
many WGs and too many documents to spend adequate time providing
detailed feedback and educating WGs and authors. This problem
should be considered in any IETF reorganization.
When the interest of document editors or key contributors starts to
flag, this can cause serious problems for a WG. This most often
happens when WGs are floundering, or when charters are so loose
that WGs lose focus. It also happens when WG documents get stuck
in AD review and/or IESG review for long periods with little
feedback, or when the WG lacks consensus to progress its documents.
In most cases, these problems could be identified by periodic
reviews of WG progress, and corrective action could be taken on a
case-by-case basis (take steps to progress the documents, narrow
the charter of the WG, split the WG in two, disband the WG, etc.).
These problems might also be addressed by optimizing our document
publication processes to result in more timely publication of WG
output.
4.5 Decomposition of the Management Scaling Problem
There are several issues grouped into the concept that the
management structure of the IETF is not well matched to the size
and complexity of the organization. One or two of these problems
might be addressed by near-term solutions, but resolving the
primary problem will require some type of IETF reorganization.
There are three major areas for improvement that are grouped under
this problem:
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 11
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
- The current organization of the IETF does not scale. IESG
members are running too many WGs, reviewing too many
documents, etc. Most IESG members have dozens of direct
reports (WG chairs, directorate members, etc.). In its
current form, there are very few people who could do a good
job as an IESG member, and the huge time commitment and
responsibilities of this role make it very difficult to find
qualified people who are willing to serve on the IESG.
- The IETF selection processes have tended to select leaders
(IESG, IAB and WG chairs) from the same small pool of
people. The IETF needs to identify and develop additional
leadership, and to delegate real authority and influence to
a larger group.
- One or two people can block WG documents indefinitely (in AD
review or IESG review).
Some level of IETF reorganization is needed to improve in the first
two areas. Any reorganization of the IETF should be done with a
good understanding of the IETF's mission and core values. Any
reorganization needs to be carefully considered and planned, to
avoid disrupting current work and to avoid damaging things about
the IETF that are currently working well.
In parallel with a longer-term IETF reorganization, however, some
relief could be achieved by modifying IESG internal processes to
remove the potential for one or two IESG members to block a WG
document, either on purpose or due to work overload. The I-D
tracker has already resulted in some improvement in this area, as
it has created visibility regarding how and why a document is being
held, but it may not have resolved all of the issues in this area.
To resolve the problems with the size of our leadership pool, we
will need to examine, and perhaps modify, our current selection
processes. IESG and IAB members are currently selected via the
Nomcom process, and WG chairs are currently appointed by the
"responsible AD" for each WG.
The field of IESG candidates is sharply limited by the fact that
serving on the IESG is nearly a full-time job. If we reorganize to
make our leadership roles realistic to pursue as part-time
activities, that would widen the leadership selection pool.
We may also need to modify our Nomcom processes so that IETF
participants who are not part of the IETF leadership can have more
visibility into the Nomcom process and more proportional input into
leadership selection. [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that these
are real problems that need to be solved?]
We may also want to reconsider the process that is used to select
WG chairs. In particular, ADs could be encouraged to announce WG
chair openings within their areas and/or to identify and develop
more potential leaders. [OPEN ISSUE: Is there IETF consensus that
we have a problem in this area?]
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 12
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
4.6 Decomposition of the Decision Process Problem
Although "rough consensus" is considered a core value of the IETF,
consensus-based decision making works best in smaller groups with a
common viewpoint and common goals. Somehow we need to resolve the
apparent conflict between our core values regarding rough
consensus, and our desire to be an effective organization with
several thousand participants.
Although consensus-based decision making has some inherent issues,
there are some problems in the IETF that exacerbate these issues:
- WG chairs may lack the skills and training to deal with
common behavior problems that undermine or prevent
consensus.
- IETF participants are often unaware of how the IETF
decision-making processes are intended to work.
Both of these issues could be addressed through training or other
educational resources.
4.7 Decomposition of the Preparedness Problem
The IETF could benefit from training and educational resources that
increase the preparedness of IETF participants and leaders at all
levels.
The IETF currently has formal training programs for new attendees
and for new working group chairs. However, our current training
programs could use some improvement. There are also several other
groups who could benefit from training or other forms of
development (web tutorials, on-line resources, references,
mentoring, etc.), including continuing attendees, experienced WG
chairs, document editors and IESG members.
There is already an effort underway to improve WG chairs training
and educational resources and to support ongoing development of
experienced WG chairs. This effort should be continued.
The secretariat has traditionally supplied newcomer's training on
Sunday afternoons, but due to personnel changes in the Secretariat,
they will no longer be providing this training. Instead, this
effort will be folded into the effort currently responsible for WG
chairs training.
Ongoing training for experienced attendees would also be valuable.
Ned Freed, Allison Mankin and Thomas Narten provided some excellent
training on the document process during the IESG plenary in
December 2001 [DOCTRN]. Perhaps similar sessions could be planned
to increase the awareness of IETF attendees regarding IETF
processes, how to produce high quality IETF documents, IETF
decision making processes, issues currently facing the IETF, etc.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 13
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
We should also consider developing a training program or developing
other educational resources for document editors.
It is also possible that some training could be valuable for IESG
and IAB members, as they do not always come to their positions with
experience or well-developed skills in all aspects of their jobs.
Most of the IESG and IAB training is currently done through
mentoring by experienced IESG and IAB members, but the IESG and IAB
are encouraged to seek more formal training or development in any
areas where their groups, as a whole, lacks experience and/or
skills.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 14
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
5 Process Recommendations
It is the overall recommendation of this document that we pursue
near-term improvements to resolve IETF problems in parallel with
longer-term efforts to reorganize the IETF and improve our
standards processes.
As part of this process, we should attempt to focus our near-term
improvements on areas that are less likely to be substantially
modified by our longer-term efforts, thus minimizing the likelihood
of making our own efforts obsolete.
5.1 Near-Term Improvements
Many of the problems currently facing the IETF can be resolved, or
mitigated, through near-term improvements to our current IETF
organization and processes. Many of these short-term improvements
are completely separable, and there is no reason to aggregate these
efforts into a single IETF WG. It is also unnecessary that all of
these changes be directed by the (already overworked) IESG.
However, in order to prevent the chaos and confusion that could be
caused by trying to change everything at once, it is recommended
that we choose a few initial areas for improvement and focus on
making improvements in those areas.
In choosing which areas to pursue first, we should consider the
following criteria:
- We should address our most urgent, important problems.
- The areas chosen should be cleanly separable, to allow
multiple improvements to be carried out in parallel with
minimal interference.
- We should maximize the benefit vs. the cost of making the
improvements (i.e. look for low hanging fruit).
- As much as possible, we should focus on improvements that
are less likely to be completely invalidated by a longer-
term reorganization of our management structure. This might
be accomplished by focusing on improvements at the WG and
participant levels, rather than at the IESG/IAB level.
In the sections above, we have identified several areas that could
benefit from short-term improvements, including:
1. Improve WG quality processes and the effectiveness of
document reviews at all levels.
2. Increase the availability and use of issue tracking and
document sharing/revision control software in the IETF.
3. Improve training and resources for new and experienced IETF
participants, new and experienced WG chairs, document
editors and leaders.
4. Improved communication between WG chairs to identify and
resolve inter-WG and inter-area problems.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 15
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
or two IESG members to block a document.
6. Modify the WG chair selection processes to widen the group
of people considered, and consider ways to develop more
leaders for the IETF.
7. Modify the Nomcom processes to include more visibility and
more proportional input from participants that are not in
leadership roles.
8. Initiate regular AD review of WG milestones and progress.
Applying the criteria outlined above, it would make the most sense
to address areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 through immediate short-term
efforts. These are high-priority issues, they are sufficiently
separable to be pursued in parallel, they place minimal additional
burden on the IESG, and they are the least likely to be affected by
an IESG/IAB-level reorganization of the IETF, or by subsequent
changes to the standards-track document process. Specific
recommendations for how to proceed in each of these areas are made
in the following sections.
The IESG should consider internal changes to address areas 5 and 6.
Area 7 is fairly likely to be impacted by a longer-term
reorganization, and area 8 would require a substantial time
commitment from IESG members, so it is not suggested that near-term
improvements be pursued in these areas.
5.1.1 Suggestions to Improve WG Quality Processes
A working group should be formed in the General Area of the IETF to
oversee improvements to the quality processes used in IETF WGs, and
to increase the effectiveness of IETF reviews at all levels. This
group should take an experimental, iterative approach to these
improvements:
- Identify and prioritize a set of promising proposals for
improvement.
- Figure out what each proposal is trying to improve (in
measurable terms) and define a metric to measure performance
in that area.
- Determine the current level of performance against the
defined metric.
- Institute each change in a few representative WGs (on a
volunteer basis).
- Measure the results to determine if each change was
successful.
- Make successful changes available IETF-wide, by publishing
them in BCP RFCs.
- As necessary, train WG chairs and other participants on the
how to implement the successful improvements in their WGs.
- Repeat as necessary.
[OPEN ISSUE: Should the Problem Statement WG propose a charter for
this group, or leave that to the General AD and selected chair(s)?]
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 16
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
A great deal of efficiency and synergy can be achieved by adopting
common processes and tools throughout an organization. However, it
is a strength of the IETF that WG chairs are given a great deal of
latitude to choose their own processes and tools, based on the size
and nature of their WGs. So, in general, processes and tools
should be made available to WGs and WG chairs, not forced upon
them.
5.1.2 Suggestions to Increase the Use of Tools
Ideally, the proliferation of tools within the IETF would be
accomplished via grass-roots efforts, organized by participants
within the IETF. One example of this type of effort is the recent
adoption of Jabber for use during IETF meetings.
However, it is also possible that the IESG could designate leaders
and support those leaders in organizing tools-related efforts. It
also might be helpful for the IETF to set-aside some technical and
systems resources, to make useful tools available to WGs and
participants throughout the IETF.
5.1.3 Suggestions to Improve Training
The current WG chairs and newcomer's training efforts should be
continued and expanded as possible to cover training for other
groups.
5.1.4 Suggestions to Increase WG Chair Communication
Some efforts are already underway to allow WG chairs to meet each
other, and to given them opportunities to establish communication
channels, including WG chair socials and training sessions for
experienced WG chairs. These efforts should be continued.
The IESG could help to promote chair-to-chair communication by
encouraging direct communication between WG chairs when multi-WG
issues arise.
However, most of the responsibility for establishing effective
chair-to-chair communications channels lies with the individual WG
chairs. We should stop relying on the IESG to resolve inter-WG
issues, and start communicating with each other directly regarding
inter-WG issues.
5.2 Longer-term Improvements
There are two major areas where we should consider longer-term
efforts to improve the IETF:
- Organizational structure
- IETF standards-track process
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 17
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
These two areas cannot be completely decoupled, as the roles and
responsibilities of the IETF leadership are largely defined in
terms of the standards process, and vice versa. Also, the
standards-track process and the roles of IETF leadership are both
largely defined within the same documents (RFC 2026 and RFC 2418).
Therefore, a new organizational structure and any required changes
to the standards-track process should be determined and enacted by
a single WG, called the IETF Improvement WG (improve). The WG is
encouraged to work on these issues in parallel, where possible.
5.2.1 IETF Improvement Working Group
An IETF Improvement WG should be formed. This group should be
empowered to make changes to RFC 2026, RFC 2418, the Nomcom process
and the charters of the IESG and IAB, as needed to enact a new
organization and standards track processes.
5.2.1.1 Working Group Charter and Deliverables
The IETF Improvement WG will focus on two areas:
- Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's
organizational structure.
- Improving the timeliness and utility of the IETF's standards
track document processes.
This WG will follow a two-phase process. Phase Two tasks will not
be started until the deliverables for Phase One have been completed
by the WG and submitted for publication.
Phase One: Understanding our Core Values and Our Mission
In this phase, the WG will articulate and document the core
values, mission, scope and goals of the IETF. We will also
learn how to recognize and measure the success of the IETF,
and generate performance baselines that can be used to assess
the success of later changes.
Deliverables for Phase One include:
- A document describing the core values of the IETF that
should not be compromised as a result of the reorganization
and process changes. The core values section of this
document may serve as a useful starting point for this work.
- A document describing the mission, scope and goals of the
IETF.
- A document describing how the IETF can recognize and measure
our own success.
- A set of performance baselines that characterize the recent
performance of the IETF.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 18
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
Phase Two: Organizing to Achieve our Mission and Goals without
Compromising Our Core Values
In this phase, the WG will document whatever improvements are
needed to the IETF organization and processes to allow us to
effectively achieve our mission and goals without compromising
our core values.
In this phase, the WG will:
- Determine what approach will be used to identify, plan and
execute the necessary improvements,
- Scope and prioritize a set of improvements designed to
increase the effectiveness of the IETF's organizational
structure and processes,
- Implement the improvements (most likely by publishing BCP
RFCs), and
- After a suitable time, reapply the metrics developed in
Phase One to determine if the improvements have been
successful.
Although the IETF Improvement WG will ultimately be responsible for
determining what improvements are required, it should be clear that
this WG is empowered to make changes to the IETF organizational
structure and processes, subject to approval by the appropriate
oversight body (see below), such as:
- Updates to RFC 2418, the Nomcom processes and the IESG and
IAB charters (as needed) to define a more scaleable and
effective organizational structure for the IETF.
- Updates to RFC 2026 and other published processes to build
an effective multi-level standards-track and to reflect any
new organizational roles.
5.2.1.2 Internal WG Management
The IETF Improvement WG will be managed by the WG chair(s), using
standard IETF practices and procedures, as defined in RFCs 2026 and
2418 [RFC2026, RFC2418].
To ensure that there is community consensus regarding the charter
of this WG, the charter for the IETF Improvement WG will be
developed within the Problem Statement WG and included in the final
version of this document. An initial charter proposal is included
in Appendix A.
5.2.2 IETF Improvement WG Oversight
There is an open question regarding who should have oversight
responsibility for the IETF Improvement WG, including management of
the WG chairs and approving the output for publication by the RFC
editor. The two primary options are an IESG-driven approach
overseen by the General AD, or an ISOC-driven approach overseen by
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 19
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
the ISOC President. These two proposals are further explained in
the next two sections.
The Problem Statement WG needs to decide which approach to
recommend in this area. It is our suggestion that the Problem
Statement WG select the proposal that most closely approximates the
consensus of the IETF, and tune that proposal to achieve rough IETF
consensus.
5.2.2.1 IESG-Directed Approach
One possibility is that we could use the IETF WG and document
processes defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026 [RFC2418, RFC2026] for the
oversight of the IETF Improvement WG.
In particular:
- The WG would be formed in the General Area of the IETF, with
the General AD serving as the "responsible AD".
- The documents would be submitted to the IESG for approval
and publication, according to the usual IETF processes.
- If necessary, any appeals based on the processes or output
of this WG would be handled according to the appeals
procedures defined in RFCs 2418 and 2026.
5.2.2.2 ISOC-Directed Approach
Another approach would be to ask the ISOC President and the ISOC
Board of Trustees (ISOC BoT) to assume responsibility for the
oversight of the IETF Improvement WG, similar to our current
Nominations Committee processes, as defined in RFC 2727 [RFC2727].
In particular:
- The WG would be formed outside of any IETF area, with the
ISOC President serving as the equivalent of the "responsible
AD".
- The output of each phase would be presented at an open
plenary during an IETF meeting, with IETF consensus on the
output determined by the ISOC President.
- After IETF consensus has been achieved on the output of each
phase, the documents will be submitted to the ISOC BoT for
approval and publication through the RFC editor.
- This approach does not require an explicit appeals process,
because an IETF Plenary is used as the basis for approval,
and it is that body from which the IETF draws its authority.
[OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that a defined appeals
process is not required for this option?]
5.2.3 IETF Improvement WG Chair Selection
Another open question is how the chairs for the IETF Improvement WG
should be selected. As with the organization and management of the
WG, this document offers two choices:
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 20
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
- The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the "responsible
AD", or equivalent -- either the General AD or the ISOC
President.
- The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the Nominations
Committee (Nomcom), or by a Nomcom-like group assembled for
the purpose.
Either method of chair selection could be applied to either method
of WG oversight.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 21
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
6 Conclusion
The IETF has problems, and we need to work to solve those problems,
both via focused short-term improvements and via a longer-term
effort to build an IETF structure that can better handle our
current size and complexity.
However, the IETF is also an effective organization with a long
tradition of excellence, and core values that we donĘt want to
compromise in the course of improving our organization and
processes. So, any major changes undertaken in the IETF should
include an articulation of the IETF's mission and our core values,
so that we can ensure that we build an organization that can carry
out our mission in harmony with our core values.
Working together, we can fix the problems currently facing the IETF
and make the IETF an even more effective, successful and fun place
to work.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 22
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
7 Security Considerations
This document contains suggestions for processes that the IETF
could use to resolve process-related and organizational problems
with the IETF. Although the quality of the IETF's processes may
have an affect on the quality of the IETF's security-related work,
there are no specific security-related issues raised in this
document.
8 Normative References
[IETFPROB]
E. Davies (ed.), "IETF Problem Statement", draft-ietf-problem-
issue-statement-01.txt, May 2003
[RFC2026]
S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
RFC 2026, BCP9, October 1996
[RFC2727]
J. Galvin, "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees",
RFC 2727, BCP 10, February 2000
[RFC2418]
S. Bradner, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
RFC 2418, BCP 25, September 1998
9 Informative References
[COREVAL]
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/plenary-2/sld4.htm
[DOCTRN]
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/slides/plenary-3/index.html
10 Acknowledgements
The contents of this document were greatly influenced by members of
the Problem Statement WG editorial team: Avri Doria, Dave Crocker,
Elwyn Davies, Jeanette Hofmann, Melinda Shore, Rob Austein and
Spencer Dawkins.
The initial text for the core values section is largely based on
presentations and messages authored by Harald Alvestrand.
"Good times hide problems; Bad times hide successes" is taken from
a presentation by Tom St. Dennis, the President and CEO of Wind
River.
The following people have provided useful feedback on early
versions of this document: Randy Bush, Leslie Daigle.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 23
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
11 Editor's Contact Information
Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to:
Margaret Wasserman
Wind River
10 Tara Blvd., Suite 330 Phone: (603) 897-2067
Nashua, NH 03062 USA Email: mrw@windriver.com
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 24
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
12 Appendix A: Suggested Charter for the Improvement WG
IETF Improvement Working Group (improve)
Chair(s): TBD, as described above.
Area Director(s): TBD, as described above.
Mailing List: TBD
Description of the WG:
The IETF Improvement WG is chartered to make improvements to the
management structure and processes of the IETF to address the
fundamental organizational and process problems described in the
IETF Problem Statement (RFC XXXX), according to the process
described in the IETF Problem Resolution Process (RFC XXXX).
The IETF Improvement WG will focus on two areas:
- Improving the scalability and effectiveness of the IETF's
organizational structure.
- Improving the timeliness and utility of the IETF's standards
track document processes.
This WG will follow a two-phase process. Phase two tasks will not
be started until the deliverables for Phase One have been completed
by the WG and submitted for publication.
Phase One: Understanding our Core Values and Our Mission
In this phase, the WG will articulate and document the core
values, mission, scope and goals of the IETF. We will also
learn how to recognize and measure the success of the IETF,
and generate performance baselines that can be used to assess
the success of later changes.
The deliverables for Phase One include:
- A document describing the core values of the IETF that
should not be compromised as a result of the reorganization
and process changes.
- A document describing the mission, scope and goals of the
IETF.
- A document describing how the IETF can recognize and measure
our own success.
- A set of performance baselines that characterize the recent
performance of the IETF.
Phase Two: Organizing to Achieve our Mission and Goals without
Compromising Our Core Values
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 25
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
In this phase, the WG will document whatever improvements are
needed to the IETF organization and processes to allow us to
effectively achieve our mission and goals without compromising
our core values.
In this phase, the WG will:
- Determine what approach will be used to identify, plan and
execute the necessary improvements,
- Scope and prioritize a set of improvements designed to
increase the effectiveness of the IETF's organizational
structure and processes,
- Implement the improvements (most likely by publishing BCP
RFCs), and
- After a suitable time, reapply the metrics developed in
Phase One to determine if the improvements have been
successful.
Goals and Milestones: TBD
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 26
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 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 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.
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 27
IETF Problem Resolution Process May 2003
Wasserman, Editor Expires November 2003 28 | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:34:19 |