Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      H. AlvestrandRequest for Comments: 3932                                  October 2004BCP: 92Updates:3710,2026Category: Best Current PracticeThe IESG and RFC Editor Documents: ProceduresStatus of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).Abstract   This document describes the IESG's procedures for handling documents   submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the   changes proposed by the IESG at the Seoul IETF, March 2004.   This document updates procedures described inRFC 2026 andRFC 3710.1.  Introduction and History   There are a number of different methods by which an RFC is published,   some of which include review in the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF), and some of which include approval by the Internet   Engineering Steering Group (IESG):   o  IETF Working Group (WG) to Standards Track: Includes WG consensus,      review in the IETF, IETF Last Call, and IESG approval   o  IETF WG to Experimental/Informational: Includes WG consensus,      review in the IETF, and IESG approval   o  Area Director (AD) sponsored to Standards Track: Includes review      in the IETF, IETF Last Call, and IESG approval   o  AD Sponsored Individual to Experimental/Informational: Includes      some form of review in the IETF and IESG approval   o  Documents for which special rules existAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 2004   o  RFC Editor documents to Experimental/Informational   This memo is only concerned with the IESG processing of the last   category.   Special rules apply to some documents, including documents from the   Internet Architecture Board (IAB), April 1st RFCs, and republication   of documents from other standards development organizations.  The   IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue, in consultation with   the IAB, on these other documents and their classification, but they   are outside the scope of this memo.   For the last few years, the IESG has reviewed all RFC Editor   documents (documents submitted by individuals to the RFC Editor for   RFC publication) before publication.  In 2003, this review was often   a full-scale review of technical content, with the ADs attempting to   clear points with the authors, stimulate revisions of the documents,   encourage the authors to contact appropriate working groups and so   on.  This was a considerable drain on the resources of the IESG, and   since this is not the highest priority task of the IESG members, it   often resulted in significant delays.   In March 2004, the IESG decided to make a major change in this review   model.  The new review model will have the IESG take responsibility   ONLY for checking for conflicts between the work of the IETF and the   documents submitted; soliciting technical review is deemed to be the   responsibility of the RFC Editor.  If an individual IESG member   chooses to review the technical content of the document and finds   issues, that member will communicate these issues to the RFC Editor,   and they will be treated the same way as comments on the documents   from other sources.   Note: This document describes only the review process done by the   IESG when the RFC Editor requests that review.  There are many other   interactions between document editors and the IESG for instance, an   AD may suggest that an author submit a document as input for work   within the IETF rather than to the RFC Editor, or the IESG may   suggest that a document submitted to the IETF is better suited for   submission to the RFC Editor but these interactions are not described   in this memo.2.  Background Material   The review of independent submissions by the IESG was prescribed byRFC 2026 [1]section 4.2.3.  The procedure described in this document   is compatible with that description.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 2004RFC 3710 [4]section 5.2.2 describes the spring 2003 review process   (even though the RFC was published in 2004); with the publication of   this document, the procedure described inRFC 3710 is no longer   relevant to documents submitted via the RFC Editor.3.  Detailed Description of IESG Review   The RFC Editor reviews submissions for suitability for publications   as RFC.  Once the RFC Editor thinks a document may be suited for RFC   publication, the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for   conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF   community.   The review is initiated by a note from the RFC Editor specifying the   document name, the RFC Editor's belief about the document's present   suitability for publication, and (if possible) the list of people who   have reviewed the document for the RFC Editor.   The IESG may return five different responses, any of which may be   accompanied by an IESG note to be put on the document if the RFC   Editor wishes to publish.   1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF      work.   2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG      <X>, but this does not prevent publishing.   3. The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to the IETF work done      in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time.   4. The IESG thinks that this document violates IETF procedures for      <X> and should therefore not be published without IETF review and      IESG approval.   5. The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a      way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be      published without IETF review and IESG approval.   The last two responses are included respectively, for the case where   a document attempts to take actions (such as registering a new URI   scheme) that require IETF consensus or IESG approval (as these terms   are defined inRFC 2434 [2]), and for the case where an IETF protocol   is proposed to be changed or extended in an unanticipated way that   may be harmful to the normal usage of the protocol, but where the   protocol documents do not explicitly say that this type of extension   requires IETF review.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 2004   If a document requires IETF review, the IESG will offer the author   the opportunity to ask for publication as an AD-sponsored individual   document, which is subject to full IESG review, including possible   assignment to a WG or rejection.  Redirection to the full IESG review   path is not a guarantee that the IESG will accept the work item, or   even that the IESG will give it any particular priority; it is a   guarantee that the IESG will consider the document.   The IESG will normally have review done within 4 weeks from the RFC   Editor's notification.  In the case of a possible conflict, the IESG   may contact a WG or a WG chair for an outside opinion of whether   publishing the document is harmful to the work of the WG and, in the   case of a possible conflict with an IANA registration procedure, the   IANA expert for that registry.   Note that if the IESG has not found any conflict between a submission   and IETF work, then judging its technical merits, including   considerations of possible harm to the Internet, will become the   responsibility of the RFC Editor.  The IESG assumes that the RFC   Editor, in agreement with the IAB, will manage mechanisms for   additional technical review.4.  Standard IESG Note   One of the following IESG notes will be sent to the RFC Editor for   all documents, with a request for placement either in or immediately   following the "Status of this Memo" section of the finished RFC,   unless the IESG decides otherwise:   1. For documents that specify a protocol or other technology, and      that have been considered in the IETF at one time:      The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF,      and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a      published IETF work.  This RFC is not a candidate for any level of      Internet Standard.  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the      fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that      the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such      things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate      interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to      publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of this RFC      should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation      and deployment.  SeeRFC 3932 for more information.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 2004   2. For documents that specify a protocol or similar technology and      are independent of the IETF process:      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at      its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution      in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  SeeRFC 3932 for more information.   3. For documents that do not specify a protocol or similar      technology:      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for      any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on      IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.      The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its      discretion.  SeeRFC 3932 for more information.5.  Examples of Cases Where Publication Is Harmful   This section gives a couple of examples where delaying or preventing   publication of a document might be appropriate due to conflict with   IETF work.  It forms part of the background material, not a part of   the procedure.   Rejected Alternative Bypass: A WG is working on a solution to a   problem, and a participant decides to ask for publication of a   solution that the WG has rejected.  Publication of the document will   give the publishing party an RFC number to refer to before the WG is   finished.  It seems better to have the WG product published first,   and have the non-adopted document published later, with a clear   disclaimer note saying that "the IETF technology for this function is   X".   Example: Photuris (RFC 2522), which was published after IKE (RFC2409).   Inappropriate Reuse of "free" Bits: In 2003, a proposal for an   experimental RFC was published that wanted to reuse the high bits of   the "fragment offset" part of the IP header for another purpose.  No   IANA consideration says how these bits can be repurposed, but the   standard defines a specific meaning for them.  The IESG concludedAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 2004   that implementations of this experiment risked causing hard-to-debug   interoperability problems and recommended not publishing the document   in the RFC series.  The RFC Editor accepted the recommendation.   Note: in general, the IESG has no problem with rejected alternatives   being made available to the community; such publications can be a   valuable contribution to the technical literature.  However, it is   necessary to avoid confusion with the alternatives the working group   did adopt.   The RFC series is one of many available publication channels; this   document takes no position on the question of which documents the RFC   series is appropriate for.  That is a matter for discussion in the   IETF community.6.  IAB Statement   In its capacity as the body that approves the general policy followed   by the RFC Editor (seeRFC 2850 [3]), the IAB has reviewed this   proposal and supports it as an operational change that is in line   with the respective roles of the IESG and RFC Editor.  The IAB   continues to monitor the range of organized discussions within the   IETF about potential adjustments to the IETF document publication   processes (e.g., NEWTRK working group) and recognizes that the   process described in this document, as well as other general IETF   publication processes, may need to be adjusted in the light of the   outcome of those discussions.7.  Security Considerations   The process change described in this memo has no direct bearing on   the security of the Internet.8.  Acknowledgements   This document is a product of the IESG, and all its members deserve   thanks for their contributions.   This document has been reviewed in the IETF and by the RFC Editor and   the IAB; the IAB produced the text ofsection 6.  Special thanks go   to John Klensin, Keith Moore, Pete Resnick, Scott Bradner, Kurt   Zeilenga, Eliot Lear, Paul Hoffman, Brian Carpenter, and all other   IETF community members who provided valuable feedback on the   document.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    October 20049.  References9.1.  Normative Reference   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",BCP9,RFC 2026, October 1996.9.2.  Informative References   [2]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA        Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 2434, October 1998.   [3]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Charter of        the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)",BCP 39,RFC 2850, May        2000.   [4]  Alvestrand, H., "An IESG charter",RFC 3710, February 2004.Author's Address   Harald Alvestrand   EMail: harald@alvestrand.noAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 3932       IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures    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.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]