Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      H. AlvestrandRequest for Comments: 3935                                 Cisco SystemsBCP: 95                                                     October 2004Category: Best Current PracticeA Mission Statement for the IETFStatus 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 memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the   terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission   statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a   mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led   to this point.1. Mission Statement   The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.   The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant   technical and engineering documents that influence the way people   design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the   Internet work better.  These documents include protocol standards,   best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.   The IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following   cardinal principles:   Open process - any interested person can participate in the work,      know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the      issue.  Part of this principle is our commitment to making our      documents, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our      meeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.   Technical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its      documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to      speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen toAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             October 2004      technically competent input from any source.  Technical competence      also means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound      network engineering principles - this is also often referred to as      "engineering quality".   Volunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people who      come to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the      IETF's mission of "making the Internet work better".   Rough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the      combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-      world experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.   Protocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or      function, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the      protocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on      the Internet.  Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a      protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over      it, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.2.  Definition of Terms   Mission: What an organization sets out to do.  This is in contrast to      its goal (which is what it hopes to achieve by fulfilling its      mission), and to its activities (which is what specific actions it      takes to achieve its mission).   The Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected      systems that can be used for communication of many different types      between any interested parties connected to it.  The term includes      both the "core Internet" (ISP networks) and "edge Internet"      (corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls,      NAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices).  The      Internet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every      country in the world.      The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we      believe that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on      economics, communication, and education, will help us to build a      better human society.   Standard: As used here, the term describes a specification of a      protocol, system behaviour or procedure that has a unique      identifier, and where the IETF has agreed that "if you want to do      this thing, this is the description of how to do it".  It does not      imply any attempt by the IETF to mandate its use, or any attempt      to police its usage - only that "if you say that you are doing      this according to this standard, do it this way".  The benefit ofAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             October 2004      a standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that multiple      products implementing a standard are able to work together in      order to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users.   Participants: Individuals who participate in the process are the      fundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work.      The IETF has found that the process works best when focused around      people, rather than around organizations, companies, governments      or interest groups.  That is not to say that these other entities      are uninteresting - but they are not what constitutes the IETF.   Quality: In this context, the ability to express ideas with enough      clarity that they can be understood in the same way by all people      building systems to conform to them, and the ability (and      willingness) to describe the properties of the system well enough      to understand important consequences of its design, and to ensure      that those consequences are beneficial to the Internet as a whole.      It also means that the specifications are designed with adherence      to sound network engineering principles, so that use for its      intended purpose is likely to be effective and not harmful to the      Internet as a whole.   Relevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who have to      make decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not      limited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders,      network operators, and users of the Internet.  Note that it does      not mean "correct" or "positive" - a report of an experiment that      failed, or a specification that clearly says why you should not      use it in a given situation, can be highly relevant - for deciding      what NOT to do.  A part of being relevant is being timely - very      often, documents delivered a year after core decisions have been      taken are far less useful than documents that are available to the      decision-makers at decision time.3.  The Need for a Mission Statement   The IETF has to make decisions.  And in some cases, people acting on   behalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the   entire IETF first.   There are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of   getting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a   community of several thousand people in a short time.   Having a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to   evaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it   orthogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things   that they could be invested in that help the mission better?Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             October 2004   (Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their   good judgement and do the right thing.  But we're already trying to   do that.)4.  Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission4.1.  The Scope of the Internet   A very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the   scope of the term "for the Internet".  The Internet is used for many   things, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor   competence in making standards for.   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.   At the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined   technologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for   networks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.   In attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps   the fairest balance is struck by this formulation: "protocols and   practices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected   to have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to   form part of the infrastructure of the Internet."   In addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the   principle of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the   competence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not   attempt to take the leadership.4.2.  The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption   The IETF has traditionally been a community for experimentation with   things that are not fully understood, standardization of protocols   for which some understanding has been reached, and publication of   (and refinement of) protocols originally specified outside the IETF   process.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             October 2004   All of these activities have in common that they produce documents -   but the documents should be judged by very different criteria when   the time to publish comes around, and it's not uncommon to see people   confused about what documents are in which category.   In deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the   IETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the   potential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields   information about the fact that an approach is not viable might be of   greater benefit to the Internet than publishing a standard that is   technically competent, but only useful in a few special cases.   For research of an essentially unbounded nature, with unknown   probability of success, it may be more relevant to charter a research   group than a standards group.  For activities with a bounded scope -   such as specifying several alternative protocols to the point where   experiments can identify the better one for standardization - the   IETF's working group mechanism may be an appropriate tool.4.3.  The Balance Between Mission and Procedures   The mission is intended to state what the IETF is trying to achieve.   There are many methods that can be chosen to achieve these outcomes -   for instance, the appeals procedure is defined so that we can detect   cases where our fundamental principles of technical competence and   open process has been violated; it is not itself a fundamental value.   Similarly, the question of what body in the IETF declares that a   document is ready for publication is entirely outside the mission   statement; we can imagine changing that without in any way impacting   what the IETF mission is - even though it may significantly impact   the ability to achieve that mission.4.4.  The Reach of the Internet   The Internet is a global phenomenon.  The people interested in its   evolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of   life.  The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough   consensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to   competent input from any source.  The IETF uses the English language   for its work is because of its utility for working in a global   context.Alvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             October 20044.5.  Protocol Ownership   A problem akin to the problem of deciding on the area of the IETF's   competence arises when a protocol that is clearly in the IETF's scope   is used both on and off the Internet - the premier example is of   course the Internet Protocol itself.   Sometimes the IETF defines standards that ultimately see the most use   outside the global Internet.  The IETF, having defined the standard,   will continue to provide the necessary administration of that   protocol.   Sometimes the IETF leverages standards that are defined and   maintained by other organizations; we continue to work with those   organizations on their standards and do not attempt to take them   over.5. Security Considerations   Considering security is one of the core principles of sound network   engineering for the Internet.  Apart from that, it's not relevant to   this memo.6.  Acknowledgements   This document is a result of many hours of debate, countless reviews,   and limitless emails.  As such, any acknowledgements section is bound   to be incomplete.   Among the many who provided input were the current members of the   IESG (Alex Zinin, Allison Mankin, Bert Wijnen, Bill Fenner, David   Kessens, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, Russ Housley, Scott   Hollenbeck, Steve Bellovin, Ted Hardie, Thomas Narten) and recent   IESG members (Ned Freed, Randy Bush, Erik Nordmark), as well as   multiple IAB members, and many members from the community, including   James Polk, John Klensin, Pekka Savola, Paul Hoffman, Eliot Lear,   Jonne Soininen, Fred Baker, Dean Anderson, John Leslie, Susan Harris,   and many others.  Special thanks go to Leslie Daigle, the IAB chair.Author's Address   Harald Tveit Alvestrand   Cisco Systems   Weidemanns vei 27   Trondheim  7043   NO   EMail: harald@alvestrand.noAlvestrand               Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 3935                 IETF Mission Statement             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 7]