Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                           B. AbobaRequest for Comments: 5111                         Microsoft CorporationCategory: Experimental                                        L. Dondeti                                                          QUALCOMM, Inc.                                                            January 2008Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within theInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)Status 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.Abstract   This document describes anRFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group   formation process, known as the Exploratory Group.  Exploratory   Groups may be created as the first step toward Working Group   formation, or as an intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather   (BOF) session and Working Group creation.  Exploratory Groups are   focused on completion of prerequisites for Working Group formation,   and as a result they have a short life-time, with limited   opportunities for milestone extension.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................21.1. Requirements ...............................................42. Exploratory Group Formation .....................................43. The Experiment ..................................................53.1. Success Metrics ............................................54. Security Considerations .........................................65. Normative References ............................................66. Acknowledgments .................................................6Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 20081.  Introduction   "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" [RFC2418] describes   the Working Group formation process within the Internet Engineering   Task Force (IETF).  As noted inRFC 2418[RFC2418] Section 2.1:      When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working      group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several      issues:      - Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and        relevant to the Internet community?      - Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable        within a reasonable time frame?      - What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the        level of effort required?      - Do the working group's activities overlap with those of another        working group?        ...      - Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working        group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to        produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?        ...      - Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's        topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the        working group?        ...      - Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist        for the planned work?        ...      - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the        determination of the technology?        ...      - Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the        proposed working group's efforts issues understood?      - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an        attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input        from IETF participants may be limited?Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008      - Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is        relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to        pursue?  This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere.      - Do the working group's goals overlap with known work in another        standards body, and if so is adequate liaison in place?   In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants   and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet   community may be demonstrated, the answer to other questions (such as   an understanding of existing work, clarity or achievability of goals,   or overlap with existing working groups or standards bodies) may not   be as clear.  In the past, the likely outcome in this circumstance   has been to postpone Working Group formation or even Birds of a   Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.   However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential   Working Group officially undetermined for months or even years.   While the Area Directors should provide potential Working Group   participants timely updates on the status of the potential Working   Group and insight into IESG or IAB concerns, currently there is no   mechanism to track progress toward Working Group creation, and as a   result, participants may not have a clear understanding of the status   or the next steps.  Also, the lack of formal recognition may   negatively affect the motivation of the participants, and may leave   those who have not followed the effort closely with an impression   that no work is going on.   This document describes anRFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the   Working Group (WG) formation process, known as the Exploratory Group   (EG).  Exploratory Group milestones are focused on completion of   prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they are   expected to conclude within a short time frame, with limited   opportunities for milestone extension.   This Exploratory Group experiment does not alter the Working Group   formation guidelines described inRFC 2418[RFC2418] Section 2.1, or   the Internet Standards Process described inRFC 2026 [RFC2026].   Rather, it builds on these existing processes, introducing an element   of formality which may be useful in clarifying IESG and/or IAB   concerns relating to Working Group formation criteria and motivating   more rapid progress toward their resolution.  Since Exploratory Group   documents (including the EG Charter and potential WG Charter) are   reviewed and comments are tracked using existing tools and processes,   feedback is available to Exploratory Group chairs and authors,   providing for transparency and accountability.Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 20081.1.  Requirements   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].2.  Exploratory Group Formation   If at any point during the Working Group formation process, relevance   to the Internet community and interest within the IETF and end-user   community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working Group   formation criteria outlined inRFC 2418[RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not   yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that an Exploratory Group be   formed.  Exploratory Groups MAY be created as the first step toward   Working Group formation, or as an intermediate step between an   initial Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation.   The formation of an Exploratory Group after a second BOF is NOT   RECOMMENDED.   Since the goal of an Exploratory Group is to put in place the   prerequisites for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than   might otherwise be possible, Exploratory Groups SHOULD initially be   chartered for a period of six months to twelve months, with six   months being the default.  While the IESG MAY extend the initial   Exploratory Group milestones by an additional six months, extensions   beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED.  The Exploratory Group Charter   SHOULD include at least the following "basic milestones":      o Development of a Working Group Charter.      o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of the        Working Group formation criteria described inRFC 2418[RFC2418]        Section 2.1.   The IESG MAY also include additional milestones within an Exploratory   Group charter (such as development of a problem statement or   requirements document and/or completion of a review of the literature   or current practices), as long as these additional milestones do not   compromise the ability of the Exploratory Group to deliver on the   basic milestones in a timely way.  A Exploratory Group charter MUST   NOT include milestones relating to development of standards track   documents or protocol specifications.   Since the Exploratory Group experiment is not intended as a   substitute for the existing Working Group formation process,   Exploratory Groups SHOULD be formed only in situations where the   prerequisites for formation of a WG are likely to be met if the EG   successfully completes the basic milestones.Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 20083.  The Experiment   This experiment runs for a period of 18 months from IESG approval of   the experiment.  During the period of the experiment, the IESG MAY   approve formation of as many as three Exploratory Groups.  The IESG   MUST inform the community in a public statement of any decisions for   Exploratory Group formation approved under this experiment.  Such a   statement SHOULD include a description of specific Exploratory Group   that was formed.   Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Exploratory   Groups to be handled identically to Working Groups in terms of IETF   process, tools and infrastructure; no additional burden is to be   imposed on the IETF Secretariat.  Other than the abbreviated   Exploratory Group charter, the process for formation of an   Exploratory Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including   review by the IAB and IESG, announcement of the potential Exploratory   Group, and request for review by the IETF community.  The operating   rules of an Exploratory Group (openness, meeting requirements, etc.)   are identical to Working Groups.  From the point of view of IETF   infrastructure (tools, membership in the WGCHAIRS mailing list,   process rules, Exploratory Group Charter pages, etc.)  Exploratory   Groups are treated identically to Working Groups, with the exception   that Exploratory Group names should include "EG" within the name   (e.g. "EXAMPLEEG"), so as to clearly differentiate them from Working   Groups.   Review of Exploratory Group documents will utilize the same tracking   tools and processes (including PROTO shepherding) as other IETF   documents; this allows feedback to be viewed by Exploratory Group   Chairs and participants, as well as providing additional clarity on   next steps.  Formation of an Exploratory Group requires the   appointment of an Exploratory Group Chair, and a well defined set of   Working Group formation criteria (agreement on the Working Group   Charter, review of the formation criteria, problem statement or   requirements document, etc.).3.1.  Success Metrics   Since one of the goals of this experiment is to enable the more rapid   formation of Working Groups, the success of an individual Exploratory   Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the   progress made toward Working Group formation.  Useful metrics   include:Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008   Progress on Basic Milestones        A Exploratory Group that does not make progress on its basic        milestones cannot be judged successful, regardless of its other        achievements, such as progress on a literature review or        requirements document.  Progress on the basic milestones is        measured by whether they are completed within the time-frame        specified in the initial Exploratory Group Charter, and whether        feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF community is positive,        leading the IESG to vote to form a Working Group.   Mailing List Activity        Since one of the goals of the Exploratory Group experiment is to        avoid a potential loss of interest among participants, evidence        of continued engagement on the part of Exploratory Group        participants based on mailing list activity is a potential        success metric.  Conversely, an Exploratory Group whose mailing        list shows minimal traffic would probably not be a good        candidate for milestone extension.4.  Security Considerations   This document describes an experiment in the formation of Exploratory   Groups.  It has no security considerations.5.  Normative References   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision              3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996.   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and              Procedures",BCP 25,RFC 2418, September 1998.   [RFC3933]  Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process              Experiments",BCP 93,RFC 3933, November 2004.6.  Acknowledgments   The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas   Narten, Lars Eggert, Eric Rescorla, Sam Hartman, and John Klensin for   valuable input.Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008Authors' Addresses   Bernard Aboba   Microsoft Corporation   One Microsoft Way   Redmond, WA 98052   EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com   Phone: +1 425 706 6605   Fax:   +1 425 936 7329   Lakshminath Dondeti   QUALCOMM, Inc.   5775 Morehouse Dr   San Diego, CA   USA   EMail: ldondeti@qualcomm.com   Phone: +1 858-845-1267Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 5111              Exploratory Group Experiment          January 2008Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 8]