Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         E. HuizerRequest for Comments: 2031                  SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bvCategory: Informational                                    October 1996IETF-ISOC relationshipStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of   this memo is unlimited.Abstract   This memo summarises the issues on IETF - ISOC relationships as the   have been discussed by the Poised Working Group. The purpose of the   document is to gauge consensus on these issues. And to allow further   discussions where necessary.Introduction   The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the body that is   responsible for the development and maintenance of the Internet   Standards. Traditionally the IETF is a volunteer organization. The   driving force is dedicated high quality engineers from all over the   world. In a structure of working groups these engineers exchange   ideas and experience, and through discussion (both by e-mail and face   to face) they strive to get rough consensus. The engineers then work   on building running code to put the consensus to the test and evolve   it into an Internet Standard.   The growth of the Internet has also led to a growth of the IETF. More   and more people, organizations and companies rely on Internet   Standards. The growth of responsibility as well as amount of   participants has forced the IETF to more and more structure its   processes. Non technical issues, such as legal issues, liaison issues   etc., have become an undesirable but a seemingly unavoidable part of   the IETF organization. To address these issues the IETF established   the Poised95 working group. The working group is now trying to   structure and document the IETF processes in such a way as to keep   the maximum flexibility and freedom for the engineers in the IETF to   work in the way the IETF has always been most successful, and to   honour the IETF credo: "Rough consensus and running code".   One of the more obvious recommendations that came out of the Poised   WG was to move all non technical issues that can be moved safely, to   another related organization. The Poised WG finds that the InternetHuizer                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996   Society (ISOC) is the obvious choice for this task. A straw poll at   the open plenary session of the IETF in december 1995 in Dallas   clearly confirmed this notion.   However, since this is an issue that is crucial to the functioning of   the IETF as a whole it is necessary to get a broad (rather than a   rough) consensus on this issue. At the same time it is necessary to   clearly indicate the extend of the relationship between the IETF and   ISOC. So both the IETF participants and the ISOC board of trustees   get a clear picture on the division of responsibilities.   The details of the Poised WG recommendations on the IETF - ISOC   relationships can be found in the appropriate places in a series of   Poised documents in progress: - The IETF Standards Process - The IETF   organizational structure - The IETF charter - The Nomcom procedures -   The Appeals procedures   The current document is meant to summarize the Poised WG   recommendations in order to gauge the consensus. This document does   not have, and is not intended to get, a formal status. The current   and upcoming working documents of the Poised WG will become the   formal documents. Readers who are interested in the nitty gritty   details are referred to these working documents of the Poised WG.Main boundary condition   The IETF remains responsible for the development and quality of the   Internet Standards. The ISOC will aid the IETF by facilitating legal   and organizational issues as described below. Apart from the roles   described below, the IETF and ISOC acknowledge that the ISOC has no   influence whatsoever on the Internet Standards process, the Internet   Standards or their technical content.   All subgroups in the IETF and ISOC that have an official role in the   standards process should be either:   - open to anyone (like Working Groups); or   - have a well documented restricted membership in which the     voting members are elected or nominated through an open process.   The latter means that within the IETF the IAB and the IESG need to be   formed through a nomination process that is acceptable to the IETF   community and that gives all IETF participants an equal chance to be   candidate for a position in either of these bodies. For the ISOC this   means that the Board of Trustees should be elected by the ISOC   individual membership, where all individual members have an equal   vote and all individual members have an equal opportunity to stand as   a candidate for a position on the Board of Trustees.Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996   ISOC will, like the IETF use public discussion and consensus building   processes when it wants to develop new policies or regulations that   may influence the role of ISOC in the Internet or the Internet   Technical work. ISOC will always put work related to Internet   standards, Internet technical issues or Internet operations up for   discussion in the IETF through the IETF Internet-drafts publication   process.The legal umbrella   To avoid the fact that the IETF has to construct its own legal   structure to protect the standards and the standards process, ISOC   should provide a legal umbrella. The legal umbrella will at least   cover:   - legal insurance for all IETF officers (IAB, IESG, Nomcom and WG      chairs);   - legal protection of the RFC series of documents; In such a way     that these documents can be freely (i.e. no restrictions     financially or otherwise) distributed, copied etc. but cannot     be altered or misused. And that the right to change the document     lies with the IETF.   - legal protection in case of Intellectual property rights disputes     over Internet Standards or parts thereof.The standards process role   ISOC will assist the standards process by     - appointing the nomcom chair     - approving IAB candidates     - reviewing and approving the documents that describe the standards       process (i.e. the formal Poised documents).     - acting as the last resort in the appeals processSecurity considerations   By involving ISOC into specific parts of the Standards process, the   IETF has no longer absolute control. It can be argued that this is a   breach of security. It is therefore necessary to make sure that the   ISOC involvement is restricted to well defined and understood parts,   at well defined and understood boundary conditions. The Poised WG   attempts to define these, and they are summarised in this document.   There are three alternatives:   - Do nothing and ignore the increasing responsibility and growth; the     risk here is that the IETF either becomes insignificant, or will be     suffocated by US law suits.Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996   - The IETF does everything itself; this keeps the IETf in control,     but it would distract enormously from the technical work the IETF     is trying to get done.   - The IETF finds another organization than ISOC to take on the role     described above. But why would another organization be better than     ISOC?   All in all a certain risk seems unavoidable, and a relationship with   ISOC, under the restrictions and boundary conditions as have been   described above, seems more like an opportunity for the IETF than   like a risk.Acknowledgement and disclaimer   The author is chair of the Poised 95 WG. The author has tried to   summarise e-mail and face to face discussions in the WG. All the good   ideas in this paper are the result of the WG, all the mistakes and   errors are probably due to the author or his lack of command of the   American language as well as the American legal system.   The author is a member of the Internet Society.Author's Address   Erik Huizer   SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv   P.O. Box 19115   3501 DC  Utrecht   The Netherlands   Tel: +31 302 305 305   Fax: +31 302 305 329   E-mail: Erik.Huizer@sec.nlHuizer                       Informational                      [Page 4]