Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      H. AlvestrandRequest for Comments: 3710                                 Cisco SystemsCategory: Informational                                    February 2004An IESG charterStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   This memo provides a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering   Group (IESG), a management function of the Internet Engineering Task   Force (IETF).  It is meant to document the charter of the IESG as it   is presently understood.1.  Introduction1.1.  The Role of the IESG   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the group   responsible for the direct operation of the IETF and for ensuring the   quality of work produced by the IETF.   The IESG charters and terminates working groups, selects their   chairs, monitors their progress and coordinates efforts between them.   The IESG performs technical review and approval of working group   documents and candidates for the IETF standards track, and reviews   other candidates for publication in the RFC series.  It also   administers IETF logistics, including operation of the Internet-Draft   document series and the IETF meeting event.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20041.2.  Historic Note   The role of the IESG in the IETF management structure has been   largely constant since 1993, after the significant changes introduced   by the "POISED" process, and documented inRFC 1602 [5].  (The   previous process was documented inRFC 1310 [4];RFC 1602 has later   been updated byRFC 1871 [7] and obsoleted byRFC 2026 [1].)   Some of the functions were also defined inRFC 1603 [6], Working   Group Guidelines, which was later obsoleted byRFC 2418 [2].   As the community has grown, and the IESG has gathered experience, the   ways in which the IESG has approached its tasks have varied   considerably, but the tasks have remained relatively constant.   This document describes the tasks assigned to the IESG.  It does not   attempt to describe in detail the procedures the IESG uses to   accomplish these tasks; that is done elsewhere - consult the IESG's   Web pages on the IETF Website for more information [9].   At this time (spring 2003), the structure of the IETF is undergoing   reevaluation, and the result is likely to include changes to the   IESG's role.  Therefore, this document was written as a   "documentation of existing practice" rather than as IETF consensus on   what the IESG should do.   This document is published as an Informational RFC, detailing the   current operations of the IESG.  It does not claim to represent   consensus of the IETF that this is the right set of instructions to   the IESG.2.  The Composition of the IESG   The IESG has the following members:   o  The IETF Chair, who also functions as the General Area Director      when this area is active   o  The Area Directors (ADs) for the IETF Areas   o  The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Chair and the IETF Executive      Director, as ex-officio members of the IESG.   The IETF Chair and the Area Directors are selected by the IETF NomCom   according to the procedures ofBCP 10 [3] (Nomcom procedures).   The IETF Executive Director is the person charged with running the   IETF Secretariat.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 2004   The IESG also has liaisons, who are members of the IESG mailing list   and may attend all IESG meetings.  The Liaison positions exist to   facilitate the work of the IETF by expediting communication with   other entities involved in the IETF process; which positions to have   are decided by the IESG.   The liaisons are selected as appropriate by the bodies they   represent.  At the time of this writing, the liaisons present   represent the following bodies:      The RFC Editor      The IANA      The IAB   In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the   mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to   serve as a support function.   IESG decisions are made by the IETF Chair and the Area Directors.   All IESG members can participate in the IESG's discussions.3.  Procedural Issues   While the IESG is generally free to set its own procedures, some   parts of its procedures are properly part of its charter.  These are   given here.3.1.  Decision Making   The IESG attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.  If unanimity   cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine   consensus.  There is no general rule on how the IESG takes votes; if   this had ever been needed, it is likely that the same rule as for the   IAB would be used (decisions may be taken if at least two thirds of   the members concur and there are no more than two dissents).   For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the   Area Directors are counted.   The IESG may decide that other procedures for reaching a decision are   appropriate under specific conditions.  Such other procedures may   include:   o  Assertions of IETF consensus, such as when evaluating a standards      action.  Here, in addition to the technical quality of the      specification, the IESG has to evaluate the community opinionAlvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 2004      about the specification's subject matter; this has to happen with      due notice and opportunity for community feedback.   o  IESG actions in areas where the IESG has the authority to take      action.  This does not need special rules.   o  AD actions taken with the advice and consent of the IESG; the IESG      is expected to be kept informed, and gives comment, but the      authority to act is delegated to the AD.   o  AD action; cases where an AD can take independent action without      needing to consult the IESG first.   The IESG may reach decisions by face to face meeting,   teleconferencing, Internet communication, or any combination of the   above.3.2.  Openness and Confidentiality   The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the   Internet, and conducts an open meeting at every IETF meeting.  It   publishes more detailed documentation of decisions as RFCs, Internet   Drafts or messages to the IETF-announce mailing list, with copies   kept on the IETF website when appropriate.   The IESG also has private group discussions, using any means of its   choice, including email.  Records of those discussions are not   required to be made public.  This is believed to be vital in   permitting a frank exchange of viewpoints and worries, allowing   people to speak out freely on topics known to be controversial, and   permitting people to change their minds based on presented arguments.   Decisions and their justification are a matter of public record.   However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and   financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential,   and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude   liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as   inappropriate for the particular discussion.   The chair may also exclude members and liaisons who have a serious   conflict of interest on an issue (although this has never been   enacted).  Members can also choose to recuse themselves from   discussion of an issue, or refrain from participating in a particular   ballot, if they feel it is appropriate.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20044.  The IESG Role in Working Group Management   The IESG is in charge of managing the working group process.  While   the process of managing a working group is assigned to the working   group chairs, the IESG is in charge of those processes that are   beyond the scope of the working group chair's role.  Most of these   functions are delegated by the IESG to a single Area Director - the   "responsible Area Director" for the group.4.1.  Working Group Creation   The formation of working groups is described inBCP 25 [2],section2; this document does not repeat the text there, but gives additional   details of IESG actions.   A Working Group (WG) may be requested by members of the IETF   community, who address the request to an AD that the requesters feel   is the appropriate AD for the task, or the formation can be initiated   by an AD.  The IESG may assign the prospective working group to   another AD and/or Area if the IESG thinks that is best.   The AD is responsible for ensuring that a working group being   chartered fulfills the criteria for WG formation given inBCP 25.   The charter is the result of a negotiation between the AD and the   community of interest, with review and advice from the rest of the   IESG and the IAB.   The AD, with the advice of the IESG, is also responsible for   selecting chairs for the working group which the AD thinks will be up   to the task.   All charters for proposed working groups are announced to the   community at large when the IESG thinks the charter is ready for   review, but prior to the IESGs final decision on chartering the WG.   The final decision to charter a WG is an IESG decision.   The Birds of a Feather (BOF) procedure described inBCP 25 [2],   section 2.4 also requires approval from the relevant AD (the one who   got the request or the AD that the IESG thinks is the right AD to   manage the task).  A BOF is not required to start a working group,   and a BOF may be held without the purpose of creating a working   group.  BOFs are also often discussed with the IESG and IAB.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20044.2.  Working Group Management   The role of the Area Director in WG management is described inBCP 25   [2], section 6.7.   The role of managing a WG is divided between the WG Chair(s) and the   AD.   A WG chair has to manage the working group "from the inside", dealing   with individuals, drafts, proposals, meetings and email lists, and   has full power and responsibility to do that.   An AD manages a WG "from the outside", dealing with charters, chairs,   cross-WG and cross-area relationships and so on.   The AD is responsible for making sure the working groups stay focused   on the charter tasks, make forward progress, are coordinated with the   rest of the area, and are coordinated with the rest of the IETF.  The   ADs help each other with maintaining cross-area coordination.   In a well functioning working group, main responsibility for these   things rests with the chairs; the AD will normally be able to   concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work.   When a WG finds that it is essential that work gets done which is not   on its charter, the AD, consulting with the rest of the IESG as   required, is responsible for figuring out whether to add it to their   charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone outside the   WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG.   Substantive changes to the body of a WG's charter require the same   type of process as chartering - seeBCP 25 [2], section 5.   The Area Director is also responsible for picking and, when   necessary, replacing working group chairs.  This is done in   consultation with the IESG, but the decision is made by the   responsible AD.4.3.  Working Group Termination   Terminating a WG is a decision of the responsible AD.   A working group may be shut down when its work is complete, or when   the AD concludes that letting the working group continue its work no   longer contributes to the IETF's progress.   The decision to terminate a working group is announced, giving the   reason for termination.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20045.  The IESG Role in Document Review   The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient   quality for release as RFCs, that they describe their subject matter   well, and that there are no outstanding engineering issues that   should be addressed before publication.  The degree of review will   vary with the intended status and perceived importance of the   documents.   When there are problems or solutions that occur frequently, the IESG   may publish documents describing the problems and how to avoid them,   such as "IANA considerations" (BCP 26 [8]), or publish web pages with   commonly used guidelines.   Rules - stuff that the community is expected to follow - are decided   by IETF consensus processing and commonly published as BCP RFCs.   Guidance to the community that is of a more ephemeral and less   normative nature is decided by the IESG and published on the IESG's   Web pages.5.1.  Working Group Documents   This role is described inBCP 25 [2], section 7.5 and 8, andBCP 9   [1], section 6.  The IESG role is one of review and approval.5.2.  Non-Working Group Documents5.2.1.  Standards-Track Documents   This role, which applies to Proposed, Draft, Standard and BCP   processing, is described inBCP 9 [1], section 6.  Such documents are   submitted to the IESG, and are then assigned to a relevant AD.  The   IESG is responsible for determining:   o  Whether or not the specification is appropriate for the standards      track   o  Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more      existing WGs   o  Whether or not the quality of the specification is adequate   The IESG will either approve or disapprove of the publication of the   document on the standards track; no document can be published on the   standards track without IESG approval.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 2004   The IESG may decide that a document submitted for standards-track   publication should instead be published as Experimental or   Informational, or that a document submitted for Proposed standard   should be published as a BCP, or vice versa.5.2.2.  Informational and Experimental Documents   These documents are normally submitted to the RFC Editor in   accordance with the procedures ofBCP 9 [1], section 4.2.3 andBCP 25   [2], section 8.  The IESG is asked to review all documents submitted   in this fashion for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work   done in the IETF community; this is a modification of theBCP 9 [1]   procedure, and documented inBCP 25 [2], section 8.   The IESG may recommend that the document be published as-is, that it   be reviewed by a working group, that the document be published with   an IESG note indicating issues such as conflict with the IETF   standards process, or may recommend that the document not be   published.   If the document is referred to a WG, the WG can recommend that the   document be adopted as a WG document, that it be published (possibly   with comments), or that the IESG recommend to the RFC Editor that it   not be published.  The responsible AD for the WG is responsible for   getting a response from the WG in a timely manner.   An AD, in consultation with the author, may choose to put an   individual's document directly before the IESG, without waiting for   the document to be submitted through the RFC Editor.  This document   will then be processed in the same fashion as an Informational or   Experimental document from a working group.5.3.  IESG Review Procedures   The IESG review procedures are defined by the IESG.   The IESG is responsible for conducting the process in a timely manner   with appropriate communication.   For all documents, the IESG assigns a specific AD the responsibility   of shepherding the document; that AD will normally review the   document, and possibly ask for revisions to it to address obvious   problems, before asking the entire IESG to consider it for   publication.   The IESG has web pages as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org);   current details of procedures, as well as the means of finding the   responsible AD for any document, are published there.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20046.  The IESG Role in Area Management   The IETF divides its work into a number of areas, each comprised of   working groups that relate to that area's focus (BCP 25 [2],section1).  The area structure is defined by the IESG, and the IESG can add   areas, redefine areas, merge areas, change the number of ADs assigned   to an area, or close down areas.   Changes to the area structure affect the IETF in many ways; decisions   to change the area structure are taken in consultation with the   community.   When changing the area structure, the IESG can decide which members   are responsible for new and changed areas, including making one   sitting AD responsible for multiple areas, but the IESG can only add   new members through the nomcom process.   The primary task of area management is handled by one or two Area   Directors per area.  An AD may be advised by one or more   directorates, which are created, selected, chaired and if necessary   disbanded by the AD (BCP 25 [2], section 1).  Directorates may be   specific to an area, specific to a technology, or chartered in some   other fashion.   The ADs for an area are jointly responsible for making sure the WGs   in the area are well coordinated, that there is coverage for the   technologies needed in the area, and that the challenges most   important to the Internet in that area are indeed being worked on.   The IESG decides which areas working groups belong to.7.  Other IESG Roles7.1.  Staff Supervision   The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the work of   the IETF Secretariat, with the advice and consent of the IESG, the   IAB Chair and the ISOC president.   The supervision of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and   RFC-Editor functions is handled by the IAB.Alvestrand                   Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 20047.2.  Process Management   The IESG is responsible for making sure the IETF process is   functional in all aspects.  This includes taking responsibility for   initiating consideration of updates to the process when required, as   well as addressing obvious miscarriages of process, even when they do   not fall into the categories described above.7.3.  External Relations   The responsibility for handling external relations rests with the   IAB, as described in the IAB Charter (RFC 2850 [10]).  However, when   technical cooperation is required, it is essential that the work be   coordinated with the relevant ADs.  This often means that ADs will   function in a liaison role with other organizations, but the IAB may   decide that the same function may also be done by others when it   decides that this is more appropriate.7.4.  Appeals Actions   The formal appeals procedure is described inBCP 9 [1], section 6.5.   Most decisions by a working group chair can be appealed to the AD,   and decisions by an individual AD can be appealed to the IESG.   Decisions of the IESG can be appealed to the IAB; for this reason,   the IAB chair and the liaison from the IAB recuse themselves from   discussion of appeals to the IESG.8.  Security Considerations   The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper   thought to security.  Apart from that, there seems to be no   considerations of security relevant to this memo.9.  Acknowledgements   This work has been supported, aided and abetted by the whole IESG at   the time of this writing, and has benefited from many other comments.   Thanks to David Putzolu, Pekka Savola, John Klensin, Margaret   Wasserman, Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker, Jonne Soininen, Robert Elz,   Keith Moore, Pete Resnick, Dave Crocker, Vint Cerf, Steve Coya and   all others who provided comments on various versions of this   document!Alvestrand                   Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 200410.  References10.1.  Normative References   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",BCP9,RFC 2026, October 1996.   [2]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",BCP25,RFC 2418, September 1998.   [3]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall        Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees",BCP10,RFC 2727, February 2000.10.2.  Informative References   [4]  Chapin, L., "The Internet Standards Process",RFC 1310, March        1992.   [5]  Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process --        Revision 2",RFC 1602, March 1994.   [6]  Huizer, E. and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and        Procedures",RFC 1603, March 1994.   [7]  Postel, J., "Addendum toRFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure",BCP 2,RFC 1871, November 1995.   [8]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA        Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 2434, October 1998.   [9]http://www.ietf.org   [10] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board        (IAB)",BCP 39,RFC 2850, May 2000.11.  Author's Address   Harald Tveit Alvestrand   Cisco Systems   5245 Arboretum Dr   Los Altos, CA   USA   EMail: harald@alvestrand.noAlvestrand                   Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 3710                    An IESG Charter                February 200412.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained inBCP 78 and   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology   described in this document or the extent to which any license   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any   such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to   rights in RFC documents can be found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository   athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required   to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Alvestrand                   Informational                     [Page 12]