Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          T. HardieRequest for Comments: 3929                                Qualcomm, Inc.Category: Experimental                                      October 2004Alternative Decision Making Processesfor Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETFStatus of this Memo   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).Abstract   This document proposes an experimental set of alternative decision-   making processes for use in IETF working groups.  There are a small   number of cases in IETF working groups in which the group has come to   consensus that a particular decision must be made but cannot agree on   the decision itself.  This document describes alternative mechanisms   for reaching a decision in those cases.  This is not meant to provide   an exhaustive list, but to provide a known set of tools that can be   used when needed.1.  Introduction   Dave Clark's much-quoted credo for the IETF describes "rough   consensus and running code" as the key criteria for decision making   in the IETF.  Aside from a pleasing alliteration, these two   touchstones provide a concise summary of the ideals that guide the   IETF's decision making.  The first implies an open process in which   any technical opinion will be heard and any participant's concerns   addressed; the second implies a recognition that any decision must be   grounded in solid engineering and the known characteristics of the   network and its uses.  The aim of the IETF is to make the best   possible engineering choices and protocol standards for the Internet   as a whole, and these two principles guide it in making its choices   and standards.   In a small number of cases, working groups within the IETF cannot   reach consensus on a technical decision that must be made in order to   ensure that an interoperable mechanism or set of standards isHardie                        Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   available in some sphere.  In most of these cases, there are two or   more competing proposals at approximately the same level of technical   maturity, deployment, and specification.  In some cases, working   groups can achieve consensus to advance multiple proposals and either   to revisit the question with experience or to build the required   mechanisms to handle multiple options for the life of the protocol.   In other cases, however, a working group decides that it must advance   a single proposal.   Choosing among proposals can be difficult especially when each is   optimized for slightly different use cases, as this implies that the   working group's best choice depends on the participants' views of   likely future use.  Further problems arise when different proposals   assign costs in implementation, deployment, or use to different   groups, as it is a normal human reaction to seek to prevent one's own   ox from being gored.   This document proposes a set of experimental mechanisms for use in   such cases.  To gauge the results of the use of these mechanisms, the   Last Call issued to the IETF community should note such a mechanism   is being used and which proposal among the set was chosen.  If and   when the community becomes satisfied that one or more of these   methods is useful, it should be documented in a BCP.   In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small   number of cases take precedence over the IETF's normal mode of   operation.2.  Rough Consensus as a baseline approach   The Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado   outlines the pros and cons of consensus as follows:      The advantage of consensus processes is that the resulting      decision is one that meets the interests of all the parties and      that everyone can support.  The disadvantage is that developing      such a decision can be a very slow process, involving many people      over a long period of time.  There is also a relatively high      probability of failure.  If a quick decision is needed, the      consensus approach may not work.  Consensus rule processes also      tend to favor those that oppose change and want to preserve the      status quo.  All these people have to do is refuse to support any      consensus compromises and they will win (at least as long as they      can delay change) [CONFLICT].Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   Using "rough consensus" as a guideline limits some of the   disadvantages of consensus processes by ensuring that individuals or   small factions cannot easily block a decision that otherwise has   general support.  The touchstone of "running code" can also limit the   disadvantages of consensus processes by requiring that statements   opposing particular proposals be technically grounded.   These limitations do not change the core mechanisms of consensus-   building, however, and the IETF process continues to require   individual participants both to use their best engineering judgment   to select among proposals and to balance their own interests with   those of the Internet as a whole.  Active participation and a   willingness to compromise, possibly on key points, are needed.   Historically, this has worked because a large majority of   participants have recognized that the Internet's growth and   enhancement are more important overall than any specific short-term   advantage.   In other words, "rough consensus" is sufficient in most cases in the   IETF to ensure not only that individuals or small groups are heard   when they raise technical objections, but also that they cannot block   progress when general agreement has been reached.  This document does   not suggest changing the usual mechanisms for achieving progress; it   proposes mechanisms for use when a working group has consensus that   it must make a decision but cannot make that decision by the usual   rules.3.  Conditions for use   In general, working groups should consider using alternate decision-   making processes when it is clear both that a choice must be made and   that the choice cannot be made with continued discussion, refinement   of specifications, and implementation experience.  A guideline for   determining whether these conditions have been met is included below.3.1.  There is a clear decision to be reached   There must be a clear statement of the decision to be reached.  This   may be in the working group's charter, in requirements documents, or   in other documents developed by the working group.  Prior to any   invocation of an alternate decision making process, the Chair(s)   should confirm with the working group that there is general agreement   on the decision to be reached.  This should include a specific   consensus call on whether the working group can advance multiple   proposals or must select a single proposal for the work item.Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 20043.2.  Proposals are available in Draft form   Proposed solutions must be available as Internet-Drafts and must be   sufficiently specified so that the Chair(s) believe they could be   published as an IETF specification, possibly with further refinement.   If the Chair indicates that a proposed solution is insufficiently   specified, concrete problems must be identified, and a reasonable   amount of time provided to resolve those problems must be provided.   Note that if one of the proposed solutions is "do nothing", an   explicit Draft to that effect must be available; it may, however, be   produced when the group invokes an alternate decision-making process.3.3.  The working group has discussed the issue without reaching      resolution   Consensus-building requires significant amounts of discussion, and   there is no general rule for indicating how much discussion a   technical issue requires before a group should reach consensus.  If   there is any question about whether the discussion has been   sufficient, the working group chair(s) should always err on the side   of allowing discussion to continue.  Before using an alternate   decision making process, the working group chair(s) should also make   an explicit call for consensus, summarizing the technical issues and   the choice to be made.  If new technical points are made during the   call for consensus, discussion should continue.  If no new points are   raised, but the group cannot come to consensus, the working group may   consider using an alternate decision making process.  Under no   circumstances is the working group required to use an alternate   decision-making process.3.4.  There is an explicit working group last call to use an alternate      method   In item 3.3 above, it is noted that the Chair(s) should make an   explicit call for consensus on the technical issues and should   proceed only after that call has yielded no forward progress.  A   different Last Call on whether to use an alternate decision-making   method is required, with a stated period for comments by working   group members.  This is to indicate that the decision to use an   alternate method should be taken at least as seriously as the   decision to advance a document on the standards track.  It also   provides a clear signal that this is a last moment for participants   to reconsider their positions.  The decision to use an alternate   decision making process requires the rough consensus of the working   group, as determined by the Chair(s).  The choice of which process to   use may be made in the Last Call or may be the subject of separate   discussions within the working group.  If the group comes toHardie                        Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   consensus that an alternative method is required but does not come to   consensus on the method to use, an external review team (c.f.section4.1, below) will be formed.   In discussions regarding this document, several points have been   raised about the viability of any mechanism that requires consensus   to use an alternative to consensus-based decision making.  Some   individuals have pointed out that groups having trouble achieving   consensus on a technical matter may have similar problems achieving   consensus on a procedural matter.  Others have been concerned that   this will be used as an attempt to end-run around rough consensus.   These are valid concerns, and they point both to the need to retain   rough consensus as the baseline mechanism and the need to exercise   caution when using these alternate methods.  More importantly though,   they highlight the nature  of these alternatives.  They are primarily   mechanisms that allow people to recognize the need for compromise in   a new way, by backing away from entrenched technical positions and by   putting the technical choice in the hands of the broader community.   They highlight that the choice for each participant is now between   achieving a result and failure.   There is a fundamental tension between the IETF community's desire to   get the best decision for a particular technical problem and its   desire to get a decision that has community buy-in in the form of   rough consensus.  These mechanisms cannot resolve that fundamental   tension.  They may, however, provide a way forward in some situations   that might otherwise end in a deadlock or stagnation.4.  Alternate Methods   In setting up an alternate method, care must be taken that the   process by which the decision is reached remains open and focused on   the best technical choice for the Internet as a whole.  The steps set   out below provide a straw proposal for four such mechanisms.  These   systems are relatively heavyweight, partially to highlight the   gravity of invoking these methods and partially to ensure that the   IETF community as a whole is alerted to and kept informed of the   process.  Note that alternate procedures have been used in the past;   see [RFC3127] for a description of that used in the decision between   two competing candidate protocols for Authentication, Authorization,   and Accounting.  By setting out these proposals, this document does   not intend to limit working group choice but intends to provide a set   of well-defined processes that obviate the need for reinvention in   most cases.Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 20044.1.  Alternate Method One: External Review Team Formation   The working group notifies the IETF community that it intends to form   an external review team by making a public announcement on the IETF-   announce mailing list.  That announcement should include a summary of   the issue to be decided and a list of the Internet-Drafts containing   the alternate proposals.  It should also include the name and   location of an archived mailing list for the external review team's   deliberations.4.1.1.  External Review Team Membership   External review teams have five members who must meet the same   eligibility requirements as those set out for a voting member of the   NomCom [RFC3777].  Explicitly excluded from participation in external   review teams are all those who have contributed to the relevant   working group mailing list within the previous twelve months, the   IESG, the IAB, and the members of an active NomCom.   Volunteers to serve on the review team send their names to the IETF   executive director.  Should more than five volunteer, five are   selected according to the process outlined in [RFC3797].  Note that   the same rules on affiliation apply here as to the NomCom, to reduce   the burden on any one organization and to remove any implication of   "packing" the review team.   Participants in the working group may actively solicit others to   volunteer to serve on the review team but, as noted above, they may   not serve themselves if they have commented on the list within the   previous twelve months.4.1.2.  External Review Team Deliberation   The external review team is alloted one month for deliberations.  Any   member of the team may extend this allotment by two weeks by   notifying the relevant working group Chair(s) that the extension will   be required.   The team commits to reading the summary provided during the IETF   announcement and all of the relevant Internet-Drafts.  Members may   also read the archived mailing list of the working group and may   solicit clarifications from the document authors, the working group   chairs, or any other technical experts they choose.  All such   solicitations and all deliberations among the review team of the   proposals should take place on the archived mailing list mentioned in   the IETF announcement.  The team members may, of course, have one-   on-one discussions with relevant individuals by phone, email, or in   person, but group deliberations should be on the archived list.Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 20044.1.3.  Decision Statements   Each member of the external review team writes a short decision   statement, limited to one page.  That decision statement contains a   list of the proposals in preference order.  It may also contain a   summary of the review team member's analysis of the problem and   proposed solutions, but this is not required.  These decision   statements are sent to the archived mailing list, the relevant   working group chair(s), and the IESG.4.1.4.  Decision Statement Processing   The decision statements will be tallied according to "instant-runoff   voting" rules, also known as "preference voting" rules [VOTE].4.2.  Alternate Method Two: Mixed Review Team   This mechanism allows the working group to designate a review team   that involves those outside the working group and those who have been   involved in the process within the working group.  Although it may   appear that having a single representative of each proposal will have   a null effect on the outcome, this is unlikely, except when there is   a binary choice, because of the rules for decision-statement   processing (c.f. 4.1.4.).  As in 4.1, the working group notifies the   IETF community that it intends to form a mixed review team by making   a public announcement on the IETF-announce mailing list.  That   announcement should include a summary of the issue to be decided and   a list of the Internet-Drafts containing the alternate proposals.  It   should also include the name and location of an archived mailing list   for the external review team's deliberations.4.2.1.  Mixed Review Team Membership   Mixed review teams are composed of one designated representative of   each of the proposals, typically the Internet-Draft's principal   author, and six external members.  Five of the external members are   selected per 4.1.1. above.  The sixth is designated by the IESG as a   chair of the group.  Though the primary role of the chair is to   ensure that the process is followed, she or he may vote and engage in   the deliberations.4.2.2.  Mixed Review Team Deliberation   The review team is alloted one month for its deliberations, and any   member of the team may extend that allotment by two weeks by   notifying the review team Chair this the extension will be required.Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   The review team commits to reading the summary provided during the   IETF announcement and all of the relevant Internet-Drafts.  Members   may also read the archived mailing list of the working group, and of   any other technical experts as they see fit.  All such solicitations   and all deliberations among the review team of the proposals should   take place on the archived mailing list mentioned in the IETF   announcement.4.2.3.  Decision Statements   As in 4.1.3, above.4.2.4.  Decision Statement Processing   As in 4.1.4, above.4.3.  Alternate Method Three: Qualified Short-Straw Selection   As in 4.1 and 4.2, the working group notifies the IETF community that   it plans to use an alternate decision mechanism by making a public   announcement on the IETF-announce mailing list.  That announcement   should include a summary of the issue to be decided and a list of the   Internet-Drafts containing the alternate proposals.   In this method, a single working group participant is selected to   make the decision.  Any individual who has contributed to the working   group in the twelve months prior to the working group Last Call on   the technical question (c.f. 3.3, above) may volunteer to serve as   the decision maker.  Individuals may qualify as participants by   having made a public statement on the working group mailing list, by   serving as an author for an Internet-Draft under consideration by the   working group, or by making a minuted comment in a public meeting of   the working group.  The Chair(s) may not volunteer. Each qualified   volunteer sends her or his name to the working group chair and the   IETF Executive Director within three weeks of the announcement sent   to the IETF-announce mailing list.  The IETF Executive Director then   uses the selection procedures described in [RFC3797] to select a   single volunteer from the list.  That volunteer decides the issue by   naming the Internet-Draft containing the selected proposal in an   email to the relevant working group chair, the working mailing list,   and the IESG.4.4.  Alternate Method Four: Random Assignment   Among the small number of cases for which consensus is not an   appropriate method of decision-making are an even smaller number for   which the decision involves no technical points at all and a need to   select among options randomly.  The IDN working group, as an example,Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   needed to designate a specific DNS prefix.  As the decision involved   early access to a scarce resource, a random selection was required.   In such cases, a working group may ask IANA to make a random   assignment from among a set of clearly delineated values.  Under such   circumstances, IANA will be guided by [RFC3797] in its selection   procedures.  Under extraordinary circumstances, the working group   may, with the approval of the IESG, ask IANA to select among a pool   of Internet-Drafts in this way.5.  Appeals   The technical decisions made by these processes may be appealed   according to the same rules as any other working group decision, with   the explicit caveat that the working group's consensus to use an   alternate method stands in for the working group's consensus on the   technical issue.6.  Security Considerations   The risk in moving to a system such as this is that it shifts the   basis of decision making within the IETF.  In providing these   mechanisms, it is hoped that certain decisions that may be   intractable under consensus rules may be reached under the rules set   out here.  The risk, of course, is that forcing the evaluation to   occur under these rules may allow individuals to game the system.7.  IANA ConsiderationsSection 4.3 may require the IANA to make random selections among a   known set of alternates.8.  References8.1.  Normative References   [RFC3797]  Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomination Committee              (NomCom) Random Selection",RFC 3797, June 2004.   [RFC3777]  Galvin, J., Ed. "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and              Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall              Committees",BCP 10,RFC 3777, June 2004.8.2.  Informative References   [RFC3127]  Mitton, D., StJohns, M., Barkley, S., Nelson, D., Patil,              B., Stevens, M., and B. Wolff, "Authentication,              Authorization, and Accounting: Protocol Evaluation",RFC3127, June 2001.Hardie                        Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004   [VOTE]     Center for Democracy and Voting. "Frequently Asked              Questions about IRV",http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm.   [CONFLICT] International Online Training Program on Intractable              Conflict,"Consensus Rule Processes", Conflict Research              Consortium, University of Colorado, USA.http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/consenpr.htm10.  Acknowledgements   The author would like to acknowledge the contributions and   challenging exchanges of those who reviewed this document, among them   John Klensin, Dave Crocker, Pete Resnick, Spencer Dawkins, Scott   Bradner, Joel Halpern, Avri Dora, Melinda Shore, Harald Alvestrand,   Alex Simonelis, Keith Moore, Brian Carpenter, and Alex Rousskov.11.  Author's Address   Ted Hardie   Qualcomm, Inc.   675 Campbell Technology Parkway   Suite 200   Campbell, CA U.S.A.   EMail: hardie@qualcomm.comHardie                        Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 3929        Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF     October 2004Full 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.Hardie                        Experimental                     [Page 11]