Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         P. HoffmanRequest for Comments: 4677                                VPN ConsortiumFYI: 17                                                        S. HarrisObsoletes: 3160                                   University of MichiganCategory: Informational                                   September 2006                 The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to                  the Internet Engineering Task ForceStatus of This Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).Abstract   This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and   Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and   introduces the standards process.  It is not a formal IETF process   document but instead an informational overview.Table of Contents   1. Introduction ....................................................4   2. Acknowledgements ................................................5   3. What Is the IETF? ...............................................5      3.1. Humble Beginnings ..........................................6      3.2. The Hierarchy ..............................................7           3.2.1. ISOC (Internet Society) .............................7           3.2.2. IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group) ..........8           3.2.3. IAB (Internet Architecture Board) ..................10           3.2.4. IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) .........11           3.2.5. RFC Editor .........................................11           3.2.6. IETF Secretariat ...................................12      3.3. IETF Mailing Lists ........................................12   4. IETF Meetings ..................................................13      4.1. Registration ..............................................14      4.2. Take the Plunge and Stay All Week! ........................15      4.3. Newcomer Training .........................................16      4.4. Dress Code ................................................16      4.5. Seeing Spots Before Your Eyes .............................16      4.6. Terminal Room .............................................17      4.7. Meals and Other Delights ..................................17      4.8. Social Event ..............................................18      4.9. Agenda ....................................................18      4.10. EDU to the Rescue ........................................19      4.11. Where Do I Fit In? .......................................19           4.11.1. IS Managers .......................................19           4.11.2. Network Operators and ISPs ........................19           4.11.3. Networking Hardware and Software Vendors ..........20           4.11.4. Academics .........................................20           4.11.5. Computer Trade Press ..............................20      4.12. Proceedings ..............................................21      4.13. Other General Things .....................................21   5. Working Groups .................................................22      5.1. Working Group Chairs ......................................23      5.2. Getting Things Done in a Working Group ....................24      5.3. Preparing for Working Group Meetings ......................25      5.4. Working Group Mailing Lists ...............................26      5.5. Interim Working Group Meetings ............................27   6. BOFs ...........................................................27   7. New to the IETF and Coming to a Meeting? STOP HERE!      (Temporarily) ..................................................28   8. RFCs and Internet Drafts .......................................29      8.1. Getting an RFC Published ..................................29      8.2. Letting Go Gracefully .....................................30      8.3. Internet Drafts ...........................................31           8.3.1. Recommended Reading for Writers ....................32           8.3.2. Filenames and Other Matters ........................33      8.4. Standards-Track RFCs ......................................34           8.4.1. Telling It Like It Is -- Using MUST and SHOULD                  and MAY ............................................35           8.4.2. Normative References in Standards ..................36           8.4.3. IANA Considerations ................................37           8.4.4. Security Considerations ............................37           8.4.5. Patents in IETF Standards ..........................37      8.5. Informational and Experimental RFCs .......................38   9. How to Contribute to the IETF ..................................39      9.1. What You Can Do ...........................................39      9.2. What Your Company Can Do ..................................40   10. IETF and the Outside World ....................................40      10.1. IETF and Other Standards Groups ..........................40      10.2. Press Coverage of the IETF ...............................41   11. Security Considerations .......................................42   Appendix A. Related Information ...................................43      A.1. Why "the Tao"? ............................................43      A.2. Useful Email Addresses ....................................43      A.3. Useful Documents and Files ................................44      A.4. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Tao ................44   Appendix B. IETF Guiding Principles ...............................45      B.1. General ...................................................45      B.2. Management and Leadership .................................45      B.3. Process ...................................................46      B.4. Working Groups ............................................46      B.5. Documents .................................................47   Informative References ............................................481.  Introduction   Since its early years, attendance at Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF) face-to-face meetings has grown phenomenally.  Many of the   attendees are new to the IETF at each meeting, and many of those go   on to become regular attendees.  When the meetings were smaller, it   was relatively easy for a newcomer to get into the swing of things.   Today, however, a newcomer meets many more new people, some   previously known only as the authors of documents or thought-   provoking email messages.   This document describes many aspects of the IETF, with the goal of   explaining to newcomers how the IETF works.  This will give them a   warm, fuzzy feeling and enable them to make the meeting and the   Working Group discussions more productive for everyone.   Of course, it's true that many IETF participants don't go to the   face-to-face meetings at all.  Instead, they're active on the mailing   list of various IETF Working Groups.  Since the inner workings of   Working Groups can be hard for newcomers to understand, this document   provides the mundane bits of information that newcomers will need in   order to become active participants.   The IETF is always in a state of change.  Although the principles in   this document are expected to remain largely the same over time,   practical details may well have changed by the time you read it; for   example, a web-based tool may have replaced an email address for   requesting some sort of action.   Many types of IETF documentation are mentioned in the Tao, from BCPs   to RFCs and FYIs and STDs.  BCPs make recommendations for Best   Current Practices in the Internet; RFCs are the IETF's main technical   documentation series, politely known as "Requests for Comments"; FYIs   provide topical and technical overviews that are introductory or   appeal to a broad audience; and STDs are RFCs identified as   "standards".  See Section 8 for more information.   The acronyms and abbreviations used in this document are usually   expanded in place and are explained fully in Appendix A.   This document is intended to obsolete FYI 17, RFC 3160.  See Section   3.2.5 for information on what it means for one RFC to obsolete   another.2.  Acknowledgements   The original version of this document, published in 1994, was written   by Gary Malkin.  His knowledge of the IETF, insights, and unmatched   writing style set the standard for this later revision, and his   contributions to the current document are also much appreciated.   Paul Hoffman wrote significant portions of this revision and provided   encouragement, expertise, and much-needed guidance.  Other   contributors include Brian Carpenter, Scott Bradner, Michael Patton,   Donald E. Eastlake III, Tony Hansen, Pekka Savola, Lisa Dusseault,   the IETF Secretariat, members of the User Services Working Group, and   members of the PESCI design team.3.  What Is the IETF?   The Internet Engineering Task Force is a loosely self-organized group   of people who contribute to the engineering and evolution of Internet   technologies.  It is the principal body engaged in the development of   new Internet standard specifications.  The IETF is unusual in that it   exists as a collection of happenings, but is not a corporation and   has no board of directors, no members, and no dues; see [BCP95], "A   Mission Statement for the IETF", for more detail.   Its mission includes the following:   o  Identifying, and proposing solutions to, pressing operational and      technical problems in the Internet   o  Specifying the development or usage of protocols and the near-term      architecture to solve such technical problems for the Internet   o  Making recommendations to the Internet Engineering Steering Group      (IESG) regarding the standardization of protocols and protocol      usage in the Internet   o  Facilitating technology transfer from the Internet Research Task      Force (IRTF) to the wider Internet community   o  Providing a forum for the exchange of information within the      Internet community between vendors, users, researchers, agency      contractors, and network managers   The IETF meeting is not a conference, although there are technical   presentations.  The IETF is not a traditional standards organization,   although many specifications are produced that become standards.  The   IETF is made up of volunteers, many of whom meet three times a year   to fulfill the IETF mission.   There is no membership in the IETF.  Anyone may register for and   attend any meeting.  The closest thing there is to being an IETF   member is being on the IETF or Working Group mailing lists (see   Section 3.3).  This is where the best information about current IETF   activities and focus can be found.   Of course, no organization can be as successful as the IETF is   without having some sort of structure.  In the IETF's case, that   structure is provided by other organizations, as described in   [BCP11], "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process".   If you participate in the IETF and read only one BCP, this is the one   you should read.   In many ways, the IETF runs on the beliefs of its members.  One of   the "founding beliefs" is embodied in an early quote about the IETF   from David Clark: "We reject kings, presidents and voting.  We   believe in rough consensus and running code".  Another early quote   that has become a commonly-held belief in the IETF comes from Jon   Postel: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you   accept".   The IETF is really about its members.  Because of the unrestrictive   membership policies, IETF members come from all over the world and   from many different parts of the Internet industry.  See Section 4.11   for information about the ways that many people fit into the IETF.   One more thing that is important for newcomers: the IETF in no way   "runs the Internet", despite what some people mistakenly might say.   The IETF makes standards that are often adopted by Internet users,   but it does not control, or even patrol, the Internet.  If your   interest in the IETF is because you want to be part of the overseers,   you may be badly disappointed by the IETF.3.1.  Humble Beginnings   The first IETF meeting was held in January 1986 at Linkabit in San   Diego, with 21 attendees.  The 4th IETF, held at SRI in Menlo Park in   October 1986, was the first that non-government vendors attended.   The concept of Working Groups was introduced at the 5th IETF meeting   at the NASA Ames Research Center in California in February 1987.  The   7th IETF, held at MITRE in McLean, Virginia, in July 1987, was the   first meeting with more than 100 attendees.   The 14th IETF meeting was held at Stanford University in July 1989.   It marked a major change in the structure of the IETF universe.  The   IAB (then Internet Activities Board, now Internet Architecture   Board), which until that time oversaw many "task forces", changed its   structure to leave only two: the IETF and the IRTF.  The IRTF is   tasked to consider long-term research problems in the Internet.  The   IETF also changed at that time.   After the Internet Society (ISOC) was formed in January 1992, the IAB   proposed to ISOC that the IAB's activities should take place under   the auspices of the Internet Society.  During INET92 in Kobe, Japan,   the ISOC Trustees approved a new charter for the IAB to reflect the   proposed relationship.   The IETF met in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in July 1993.  This was   the first IETF meeting held in Europe, and the US/non-US attendee   split was nearly 50/50.  About one in three IETF meetings are now   held in Europe or Asia, and the number of non-US attendees continues   to be high -- about 50%, even at meetings held in the United States.3.2.  The Hierarchy3.2.1.  ISOC (Internet Society)   The Internet Society is an international, non-profit, membership   organization that fosters the expansion of the Internet.  One of the   ways that ISOC does this is through financial and legal support of   the other "I" groups described here, particularly the IETF.  ISOC   provides insurance coverage for many of the people in the IETF   process and acts as a public relations channel for the times that one   of the "I" groups wants to say something to the press.  The ISOC is   one of the major unsung (and under-supported) heroes of the Internet.   Starting in spring 2005, the ISOC also became home base for the   IETF's directly employed administrative staff.  This is described in   more detail in [BCP101], "Structure of the IETF Administrative   Support Activity (IASA)".  The staff initially includes only an   Administrative Director (IAD) who works full-time overseeing IETF   meeting planning, operational aspects of support services (the   secretariat, IANA (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), and the   RFC Editor, which are described later in this section), and the   budget.  He or she (currently it's a he) leads the IETF   Administrative Support Activity (IASA), which takes care of tasks   such as collecting meeting fees and paying invoices, and also   supports the tools for the work of IETF working groups, the IESG, the   IAB, and the IRTF (more about these later in this section).   As well as staff, the IASA comprises volunteers and ex officio   members from the ISOC and IETF leadership.  The IASA and the IAD are   directed by the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which   is selected by the IETF community.  Here's how all this looks:                          Internet Society                                 |                                IAOC                                 |                                IASA                                 |                                IAD   Neither the IAD nor the IAOC have any influence over IETF standards   development, which we turn to now.3.2.2.  IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group)   The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities   and the Internet standards process.  It administers the process   according to the rules and procedures that have been ratified by the   ISOC Trustees.  However, the IESG doesn't do much direct leadership,   such as the kind you will find in many other standards organizations.   As its name suggests, its role is to set directions rather than to   give orders.  The IESG ratifies or corrects the output from the   IETF's Working Groups (WGs), gets WGs started and finished, and makes   sure that non-WG drafts that are about to become RFCs are correct.   The IESG consists of the Area Directors (ADs), who are selected by   the Nominations Committee (which is usually called "the NomCom") and   are appointed for two years.  The process for choosing the members of   the IESG is detailed in [BCP10], "IAB and IESG Selection,   Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and   Recall Committees".   The current areas and abbreviations are shown below.   Area                    Description   -----------------------------------------------------------------   Applications (APP)      Protocols seen by user programs, such as                           email and the web   General (GEN)           Catch-all for WGs that don't fit in other                           areas (which is very few)   Internet (INT)          Different ways of moving IP packets and                           DNS information   Operations and          Operational aspects, network monitoring,   Management (OPS)        and configuration   Real-time               Delay-sensitive interpersonal   Applications and        communications   Infrastructure (RAI)   Routing (RTG)           Getting packets to their destinations   Security (SEC)          Authentication and privacy   Transport (TSV)         Special services for special packets   Because the IESG has a great deal of influence on whether Internet   Drafts become RFCs, many people look at the ADs as somewhat godlike   creatures.  IETF participants sometimes reverently ask Area Directors   for their opinion on a particular subject.  However, most ADs are   nearly indistinguishable from mere mortals and rarely speak from   mountaintops.  In fact, when asked for specific technical comments,   the ADs may often defer to members at large whom they feel have more   knowledge than they do in that area.   The ADs for a particular area are expected to know more about the   combined work of the WGs in that area than anyone else.  On the other   hand, the entire IESG reviews each Internet Draft that is proposed to   become an RFC.  Any AD may record a "DISCUSS" ballot position against   a draft if he or she has serious concerns.  If these concerns cannot   be resolved by discussion, an override procedure is defined such that   at least two IESG members must express concerns before a draft can be   blocked from moving forward.  These procedures help ensure that an   AD's "pet project" doesn't make it onto the standards track if it   will have a negative effect on the rest of the IETF protocols and   that an AD's "pet peeve" cannot indefinitely block something.   This is not to say that the IESG never wields power.  When the IESG   sees a Working Group veering from its charter, or when a WG asks the   IESG to make the WG's badly designed protocol a standard, the IESG   will act.  In fact, because of its high workload, the IESG usually   moves in a reactive fashion.  It eventually approves most WG requests   for Internet Drafts to become RFCs, and usually only steps in when   something has gone very wrong.  Another way to think about this is   that the ADs are selected to think, not to just run the process.  The   quality of the IETF standards comes both from the review they get in   the Working Groups and the scrutiny that the WG review gets from the   ADs.   The IETF is run by rough consensus, and it is the IESG that judges   whether a WG has come up with a result that has community consensus.   (See Section 5.2 for more information on WG consensus.)  Because of   this, one of the main reasons that the IESG might block something   that was produced in a WG is that the result did not really gain   consensus in the IETF as a whole, that is, among all of the Working   Groups in all areas.  For instance, the result of one WG might clash   with a technology developed in a different Working Group.  An   important job of the IESG is to watch over the output of all the WGs   to help prevent IETF protocols that are at odds with each other.   This is why ADs are supposed to review the drafts coming out of areas   other than their own.3.2.3.  IAB (Internet Architecture Board)   The IAB is responsible for keeping an eye on the "big picture" of the   Internet, and it focuses on long-range planning and coordination   among the various areas of IETF activity.  The IAB stays informed   about important long-term issues in the Internet, and it brings these   topics to the attention of people it thinks should know about them.   The IAB web site is at http://www.iab.org/.   IAB members pay special attention to emerging activities in the IETF.   When a new IETF Working Group is proposed, the IAB reviews its   charter for architectural consistency and integrity.  Even before the   group is chartered, the IAB members are more than willing to discuss   new ideas with the people proposing them.   The IAB also sponsors and organizes the Internet Research Task Force   and convenes invitational workshops that provide in-depth reviews of   specific Internet architectural issues.  Typically, the workshop   reports make recommendations to the IETF community and to the IESG.   The IAB also:   o  Approves NomCom's IESG nominations   o  Acts as the appeals board for appeals against IESG actions   o  Appoints and oversees the RFC Editor   o  Approves the appointment of the IANA   o  Acts as an advisory body to ISOC   o  Oversees IETF liaisons with other standards bodies   Like the IESG, the IAB members are selected for multi-year positions   by the NomCom and are approved by the ISOC Board of Trustees.3.2.4.  IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)   The core registrar for the IETF's activities is the IANA.  Many   Internet protocols require that someone keep track of protocol items   that were added after the protocol came out.  Typical examples of the   kinds of registries needed are for TCP port numbers and MIME types.   The IAB has designated the IANA organization to perform these tasks,   and the IANA's activities are financially supported by ICANN, the   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.   Ten years ago, no one would have expected to see the IANA mentioned   on the front page of a newspaper.  IANA's role had always been very   low key.  The fact that IANA was also the keeper of the root of the   domain name system forced it to become a much more public entity, one   that was badly maligned by a variety of people who never looked at   what its role was.  Nowadays, the IETF is generally no longer   involved in the IANA's domain name and IP address assignment   functions, which are overseen by ICANN.   Even though being a registrar may not sound interesting, many IETF   participants will testify to how important IANA has been for the   Internet.  Having a stable, long-term repository run by careful and   conservative operators makes it much easier for people to experiment   without worrying about messing things up.  IANA's founder, Jon   Postel, was heavily relied upon to keep things in order while the   Internet kept growing by leaps and bounds, and he did a fine job of   it until his untimely death in 1998.3.2.5.  RFC Editor   The RFC Editor edits, formats, and publishes Internet Drafts as RFCs,   working in conjunction with the IESG.  An important secondary role is   to provide one definitive repository for all RFCs (see   http://www.rfc-editor.org).  Once an RFC is published, it is never   revised.  If the standard it describes changes, the standard will be   re-published in another RFC that "obsoletes" the first.   One of the most popular misconceptions in the IETF community is that   the role of the RFC Editor is performed by IANA.  In fact, the RFC   Editor is a separate job, although both the RFC Editor and IANA   involved the same people for many years.  The IAB approves the   organization that will act as RFC Editor and the RFC Editor's general   policy.  The RFC Editor is funded by IASA and can be contacted by   email at mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.3.2.6.  IETF Secretariat   There are, in fact, a few people who are paid to maintain the IETF.   The IETF Secretariat provides day-to-day logistical support, which   mainly means coordinating face-to-face meetings and running the   IETF-specific mailing lists (not the WG mailing lists).  The   Secretariat is also responsible for keeping the official Internet   Drafts directory up to date and orderly, maintaining the IETF web   site, and helping the IESG do its work.  It provides various tools   for use by the community and the IESG.  The IETF Secretariat is under   contract to IASA, which in turn is financially supported by the fees   of the face-to-face meetings.3.3.  IETF Mailing Lists   Anyone who plans to attend an IETF meeting should join the IETF   announcement mailing list, mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org.  This is   where all of the meeting information, RFC announcements, and IESG   Protocol Actions and Last Calls are posted.  People who would like to   "get technical" may also join the IETF general discussion list,   ietf@ietf.org.  This is where discussions of cosmic significance are   held (Working Groups have their own mailing lists for discussions   related to their work).  Another mailing list, mailto:i-d-   announce@ietf.org, announces each new version of every Internet Draft   as it is published.   Subscriptions to these and other IETF-run mailing lists are handled   by a program called "mailman".  Mailman can be somewhat finicky about   the format of subscription messages, and sometimes interacts poorly   with email programs that make all email messages into HTML files.   Mailman will treat you well, however, if you format your messages   just the way it likes.   To join the IETF announcement list, for example, send email to   mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org.  Enter the word 'subscribe'   (without the quotes) in the Subject line of the message and in the   message body.  To join the IETF discussion list, send email to   <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org> and enter the word 'subscribe' as   explained above.  If you decide to withdraw from either list, use the   word 'unsubscribe'.  Your messages to mailman should have nothing   other than the commands 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' in them.  Both   lists are archived on the IETF web site,   http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html.   Do not, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, send a request   to join a list to the list itself!  The thousands of people on the   list don't need, or want, to know when a new person joins.   Similarly, when changing email addresses or leaving a list, send your   request only to the "-request" address, not to the main list.  This   means you!!   The IETF discussion list is unmoderated.  This means that all can   express their opinions about issues affecting the Internet.  However,   it is not a place for companies or individuals to solicit or   advertise, as noted in [BCP45], "IETF Discussion List Charter".  It   is a good idea to read the whole RFC (it's short!) before posting to   the IETF discussion list.  Actually, the list does have two   "sergeants at arms" who keep an eye open for inappropriate postings,   and there is a process for banning persistent offenders from the   list, but fortunately this is extremely rare.   Only the Secretariat and certain IETF office holders can approve   messages sent to the announcement list, although those messages can   come from a variety of people.   Even though the IETF mailing lists "represent" the IETF membership at   large, it is important to note that attending an IETF meeting does   not mean you'll be automatically added to either mailing list.4.  IETF Meetings   The computer industry is rife with conferences, seminars,   expositions, and all manner of other kinds of meetings.  IETF face-   to-face meetings are nothing like these.  The meetings, held three   times a year, are week-long "gatherings of the tribes" whose primary   goal is to reinvigorate the WGs to get their tasks done, and whose   secondary goal is to promote a fair amount of mixing between the WGs   and the areas.  The cost of the meetings is paid by the people   attending and by the corporate host for each meeting (if any),   although IASA kicks in additional funds for things such as the audio   broadcast of some Working Group sessions.   For many people, IETF meetings are a breath of fresh air when   compared to the standard computer industry conferences.  There is no   exposition hall, few tutorials, and no big-name industry pundits.   Instead, there is lots of work, as well as a fair amount of time for   socializing.  IETF meetings are of little interest to sales and   marketing folks, but of high interest to engineers and developers.   Most IETF meetings are held in North America, because that's where   most of the participants are from; however, meetings are held on   other continents about once every year.  The past few meetings have   had about 1,300 attendees.  There have been more than 65 IETF   meetings so far, and a list of upcoming meetings is available on the   IETF web pages, http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt.   Newcomers to IETF face-to-face meetings are often in a bit of shock.   They expect them to be like other standards bodies, or like computer   conferences.  Fortunately, the shock wears off after a day or two,   and many new attendees get quite animated about how much fun they are   having.  One particularly jarring feature of recent IETF meetings is   the use of wireless Internet connections throughout the meeting   space.  It is common to see people in a WG meeting apparently reading   email or perusing the web during presentations they find   uninteresting.  Remember, however, that they may also be consulting   the drafts under discussion, looking up relevant material online, or   following another meeting using instant messaging.4.1.  Registration   To attend an IETF meeting, you have to register and you have to pay   the registration fee.  The meeting site and advance registration are   announced about two months ahead of the meeting -- earlier if   possible.  An announcement goes out via email to the IETF-announce   mailing list, and information is posted on the IETF web site,   http://www.ietf.org, that same day.   To pre-register, you must submit your registration on the web.  You   may pre-register and pre-pay, pre-register and return to the web site   later to pay with a credit card, pre-register and pay on-site at the   meeting, or register and pay on-site.  To get a lower registration   fee, you must pay by the early registration deadline (about one week   before the meeting).  The registration fee covers all of the week's   meetings, the Sunday evening reception (cash bar), daily continental   breakfasts, and afternoon coffee and snack breaks.   Credit card payments on the web are encrypted and secure, or, if you   prefer, you can use Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) to send your payment   information to the Registrar (mailto:ietf-registrar@ietf.org).   Registration is open throughout the week of the meeting.  However,   the Secretariat highly recommends that attendees arrive for early   registration, usually beginning at noon on Sunday and continuing   throughout the Sunday evening reception.  The reception is a popular   event where you can get a small bite to eat and socialize with other   early arrivals.   Registered attendees (and there aren't any other kind) receive a   registration packet.  It contains much useful information, including   a general orientation sheet, the most recent agenda, and a name tag.   Attendees who pre-paid will also find their receipt in their packet.   It's worth noting that neither attendee names and addresses nor IETF   mailing lists are ever offered for sale.   In your registration packet is a sheet titled "Note Well".  You   should indeed read it carefully because it lays out the rules for   IETF intellectual property rights.   If you need to leave messages for other attendees, you can do so at   the cork boards that are often near the registration desk.  These   cork boards will also have last-minute meeting changes and room   changes.   You can also turn in lost-and-found items to the registration desk.   At the end of the meeting, anything left over from the lost and found   will usually be turned over to the hotel or brought back to the   Secretariat's office.   Incidentally, the IETF registration desk is often a convenient place   to arrange to meet people.  If someone says "meet me at   registration", they almost always mean the IETF registration desk,   not the hotel registration desk.4.2.  Take the Plunge and Stay All Week!   IETF meetings last from Monday morning through Friday lunchtime.   Associated meetings often take place on the preceding or following   weekends.  It is best to plan to be present the whole week, to   benefit from cross-fertilization between Working Groups and from   corridor discussions.  As noted below, the agenda is fluid, and there   have been many instances of participants missing important sessions   due to last-minute scheduling changes after their travel plans were   fixed.  Being present the whole week is the only way to avoid this   annoyance.   If you cannot find meetings all week to interest you, you can still   make the most of the IETF meeting by working between sessions.  Most   IETF attendees carry laptop computers, and it is common to see many   of them in the terminal room or in the hallways working during   meeting sessions.  There is often good wireless Internet coverage in   many places of the meeting venue (restaurants, coffee shops, and so   on), so catching up on email when not in meetings is a fairly common   task for IETFers.4.3.  Newcomer Training   Newcomers are encouraged to attend the Newcomer Training, which is   especially designed for first-time attendees.  The orientation is   organized and conducted by the IETF EDU team and is intended to   provide useful introductory information.  The session covers what's   in the attendee packets, what all the dots on name tags mean, the   structure of the IETF, and many other essential and enlightening   topics for new IETFers.   Immediately following the Newcomers' Training is the IETF Standards   Process Orientation.  This session demystifies much of the standards   process by explaining what stages a document has to pass through on   its way to becoming a standard, and what has to be done to advance to   the next stage.   There is usually ample time at the end for questions.  The   Secretariat provides hard copies of the slides of the "IETF Structure   and Internet Standards Process" presentation -- these very useful   slides are also available online at www.ietf.org under "Educational   Materials".   The orientation is normally held on Sunday afternoon, along with   tutorials of interest to newcomers and old-timers alike.  Check the   agenda for exact times and locations.4.4.  Dress Code   Since attendees must wear their name tags, they must also wear shirts   or blouses.  Pants or skirts are also highly recommended.  Seriously   though, many newcomers are often embarrassed when they show up Monday   morning in suits, to discover that everybody else is wearing T-   shirts, jeans (shorts, if weather permits) and sandals.  There are   those in the IETF who refuse to wear anything other than suits.   Fortunately, they are well known (for other reasons) so they are   forgiven this particular idiosyncrasy.  The general rule is "dress   for the weather" (unless you plan to work so hard that you won't go   outside, in which case, "dress for comfort" is the rule!).4.5.  Seeing Spots Before Your Eyes   Some of the people at the IETF will have a little colored dot on   their name tag.  A few people have more than one.  These dots   identify people who are silly enough to volunteer to do a lot of   extra work.  The colors have the meanings shown here.   Color     Meaning   --------------------------------------   Blue      Working Group/BOF chair   Green     Host group   Red       IAB member   Yellow    IESG member   Orange    Nominating Committee member   (Members of the press wear orange-tinted badges.)   Local hosts are the people who can answer questions about the   terminal room, restaurants, and points of interest in the area.   It is important that newcomers to the IETF not be afraid to strike up   conversations with people who wear these dots.  If the IAB and IESG   members and Working Group and BOF chairs didn't want to talk to   anybody, they wouldn't be wearing the dots in the first place.4.6.  Terminal Room   One of the most important (depending on your point of view) things   the host does is provide Internet access for the meeting attendees.   In general, wired and wireless connectivity is excellent.  This is   entirely due to the Olympian efforts of the local hosts and their   ability to beg, borrow, and steal.  The people and companies that   donate their equipment, services, and time are to be heartily   congratulated and thanked.   Although preparation far in advance of the meeting is encouraged,   there may be some unavoidable "last minute" things that can be   accomplished in the terminal room.  It may also be useful to people   who need to make trip reports or status reports while things are   still fresh in their minds.   You need to be wearing your badge in order to get into the terminal   room.  The terminal room provides lots of power strips, lots of   Ethernet ports for laptops, wireless (for the people who don't need   Ethernet but want power), usually a printer for public use, and   sometimes workstations.  What it doesn't provide are terminals; the   name is historical.  The help desk in the terminal room is a good   place to ask questions about network failures, although they might   point you off to different networking staff.4.7.  Meals and Other Delights   Marshall Rose once remarked that the IETF was a place to go for "many   fine lunches and dinners".  Although it is true that some people eat   very well at the IETF, they find the food on their own; lunches and   dinners are not included in the registration fee.  The Secretariat   does provide appetizers at the Sunday evening reception (not meant to   be a replacement for dinner), continental breakfast every morning,   and (best of all) cookies, brownies, and other yummies during   afternoon breaks.   If you prefer to get out of the hotel for meals, the local host   usually provides a list of places to eat within easy reach of the   meeting site.4.8.  Social Event   Another of the most important things organized and managed by the   host is the IETF social event.  Sometimes, the social event is a   computer- or high-tech-related event.  At one Boston IETF, for   example, the social was dinner at the Computer Museum.  Other times,   the social might be a dinner cruise or a trip to an art gallery.   Note, however, that not all IETF meetings have social events.   Newcomers to the IETF are encouraged to attend the social event.  All   are encouraged to wear their name tags and leave their laptops   behind.  The social event is designed to give people a chance to meet   on a social, rather than technical, level.4.9.  Agenda   The agenda for the IETF meetings is a very fluid thing.  It is   typically sent to the IETF announcement list a few times prior to the   meeting, and it is also available on the web.  The final agenda is   included in the registration packets.  Of course, "final" in the IETF   doesn't mean the same thing as it does elsewhere in the world.  The   final agenda is simply the version that went to the printer.  The   Secretariat will post agenda changes on the bulletin board near the   IETF registration desk (not the hotel registration desk).  These late   changes are not capricious: they are made "just in time" as session   chairs and speakers become aware of unanticipated clashes.  The IETF   is too dynamic for agendas to be tied down weeks in advance.   Assignments for breakout rooms (where the Working Groups and BOFs   meet) and a map showing the room locations are also shown on the   agenda.  Room assignments can change as the agenda changes.  Some   Working Groups meet multiple times during a meeting, and every   attempt is made to have a Working Group meet in the same room for   each session.4.10.  EDU to the Rescue   If certain aspects of the IETF still mystify you (even after you   finish reading the Tao), you'll want to drop in on the on-site   training offered by the Education (EDU) team.  These informal classes   are designed for newcomers and seasoned IETFers alike.  In addition   to the Newcomer Training, the EDU team offers workshops for document   editors and Working Group chairs, plus an in-depth security tutorial   that's indispensable for both novices and longtime IETF attendees.   EDU sessions are generally held on Sunday afternoons.  You'll find   more about the EDU team at http://edu.ietf.org/.4.11.  Where Do I Fit In?   The IETF is different things to different people.  There are many   people who have been very active in the IETF who have never attended   an IETF meeting.  You should not feel obligated to come to an IETF   meeting just to get a feel for the IETF.  The following guidelines   (based on stereotypes of people in various industries) might help you   decide whether you actually want to come and, if so, what might be   the best use of your time at your first meeting.4.11.1.  IS Managers   As discussed throughout this document, an IETF meeting is nothing   like any trade show you have attended.  IETF meetings are singularly   bad places to go if your intention is to find out what will be hot in   the Internet industry next year.  You can safely assume that going to   Working Group meetings will confuse you more than it will help you   understand what is happening, or will be happening, in the industry.   This is not to say that no one from the industry should go to IETF   meetings.  As an IS manager, you might want to consider sending   specific people who are responsible for technologies that are under   development in the IETF.  As these people read the current Internet   Drafts and the traffic on the relevant Working Group lists, they will   get a sense of whether or not their presence would be worthwhile for   your company or for the Working Groups.4.11.2.  Network Operators and ISPs   Running a network is hard enough without having to grapple with new   protocols or new versions of the protocols with which you are already   dealing.  If you work for the type of network that is always using   the very latest hardware and software, and you are following the   relevant Working Groups in your copious free time, you could   certainly find participating in the IETF valuable.  A fair amount of   IETF work also covers many other parts of operations of ISPs and   large enterprises, and the input of operators is quite valuable to   keep this work vibrant and relevant.  Many of the best operations   documents from the IETF come from real-world operators, not vendors   and academics.4.11.3.  Networking Hardware and Software Vendors   The image of the IETF being mostly ivory tower academics may have   been true in the past, but the jobs of typical attendees are now in   industry.  In most areas of the IETF, employees of vendors are the   ones writing the protocols and leading the Working Groups, so it's   completely appropriate for vendors to attend.  If you create Internet   hardware or software, and no one from your company has ever attended   an IETF meeting, it behooves you to come to a meeting if for no other   reason than to tell the others how relevant the meeting was or was   not to your business.   This is not to say that companies should close up shop during IETF   meeting weeks so everyone can go to the meeting.  Marketing folks,   even technical marketing folks, are usually safe in staying away from   the IETF as long as some of the technical people from the company are   at the meeting.  Similarly, it isn't required, or likely useful, for   everyone from a technical department to go, particularly if they are   not all reading the Internet Drafts and following the Working Group   mailing lists.  Many companies have just a few designated meeting   attendees who are chosen for their ability to do complete and useful   trip reports.  In addition, many companies have internal coordination   efforts and a standards strategy.  If a company depends on the   Internet for some or all of its business, the strategy should   probably cover the IETF.4.11.4.  Academics   IETF meetings are often excellent places for computer science folks   to find out what is happening in the way of soon-to-be-deployed   protocols.  Professors and grad students (and sometimes overachieving   undergrads) who are doing research in networking or communications   can get a wealth of information by following Working Groups in their   specific fields of interest.  Wandering into different Working Group   meetings can have the same effect as going to symposia and seminars   in your department.  Researchers are also, of course, likely to be   interested in IRTF activities.4.11.5.  Computer Trade Press   If you're a member of the press and are considering attending IETF,   we've prepared a special section of the Tao just for you -- please   see Section 10.2.4.12.  Proceedings   IETF proceedings are compiled in the two months following each   meeting and are available on the web and on CD.  Be sure to look   through a copy -- the proceedings are filled with information about   IETF that you're not likely to find anywhere else.  For example,   you'll find snapshots of most WG charters at the time of the meeting,   giving you a better understanding of the evolution of any given   effort.   The proceedings sometimes start with an informative (and highly   entertaining) message.  Each volume contains the final (hindsight)   agenda, an IETF overview, area and Working Group reports, and slides   from the protocol and technical presentations.  The Working Group   reports and presentations are sometimes incomplete, if the materials   haven't been turned in to the Secretariat in time for publication.   An attendee list is also included, which contains names and   affiliations as provided on the registration form.  For information   about obtaining copies of the proceedings, see the web listing at   http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html.4.13.  Other General Things   The IETF Secretariat, and IETFers in general, are very approachable.   Never be afraid to approach someone and introduce yourself.  Also,   don't be afraid to ask questions, especially when it comes to jargon   and acronyms.   Hallway conversations are very important.  A lot of very good work   gets done by people who talk together between meetings and over   lunches and dinners.  Every minute of the IETF can be considered work   time (much to some people's dismay).   A "bar BOF" is an unofficial get-together, usually in the late   evening, during which a lot of work gets done over drinks.  Bar BOFs   spring up in many different places around an IETF meeting, such as   restaurants, coffee shops, and (if we are so lucky) pools.   It's unwise to get between a hungry IETFer (and there isn't any other   kind) and coffee break brownies and cookies, no matter how   interesting a hallway conversation is.   IETFers are fiercely independent.  It's safe to question opinions and   offer alternatives, but don't expect an IETFer to follow orders.   The IETF meetings, and the plenary session in particular, are not   places for vendors to try to sell their wares.  People can certainly   answer questions about their company and its products, but bear in   mind that the IETF is not a trade show.  This does not preclude   people from recouping costs for IETF-related T-shirts, buttons, and   pocket protectors.   There is always a "materials distribution table" near the   registration desk.  This desk is used to make appropriate information   available to the attendees (e.g., copies of something discussed in a   Working Group session, descriptions of online IETF-related   information).  Please check with the Secretariat before placing   materials on the desk; the Secretariat has the right to remove   material that he or she feels is not appropriate.   If you rely on your laptop during the meeting, it is a good idea to   bring an extra battery.  It is not always easy to find a spare outlet   in some meeting rooms, and using the wireless access can draw down   your battery faster than you might expect.  If you are sitting near a   power-strip in a meeting room, expect to be asked to plug and unplug   for others around you.  Many people bring an extension cord with   spare outlets, which is a good way to make friends with your neighbor   in a meeting.  If you need an outlet adapter, you should try to buy   it in advance because the one you need is usually easier to find in   your home country.5.  Working Groups   The vast majority of the IETF's work is done in many Working Groups;   at the time of this writing, there are about 115 different WGs.  (The   term "Working Group" is often seen capitalized, but probably not for   any good reason.)  [BCP25], "IETF Working Group Guidelines and   Procedures", is an excellent resource for anyone participating in WG   discussions.   A WG is really just a mailing list with a bit of adult supervision.   You "join" the WG by subscribing to the mailing list; all mailing   lists are open to anyone.  Anyone can post to a WG mailing list,   although most lists require non-subscribers to have their postings   moderated.  Each Working Group has one or two chairs.   More important, each WG has a charter that the WG is supposed to   follow.  The charter states the scope of discussion for the Working   Group, as well as its goals.  The WG's mailing list and face-to-face   meetings are supposed to focus on just what is in the charter and not   to wander off on other "interesting" topics.  Of course, looking a   bit outside the scope of the WG is occasionally useful, but the large   majority of the discussion should be on the topics listed in the   charter.  In fact, some WG charters actually specify what the WG will   not do, particularly if there were some attractive but nebulous   topics brought up during the drafting of the charter.  The list of   all WG charters makes interesting reading for folks who want to know   what the different Working Groups are supposed to be doing.5.1.  Working Group Chairs   The role of the WG chairs is described in both [BCP11] and [BCP25].   The IETF EDU team also offers special training for WG chairs on   Sunday afternoons preceding IETF.   As volunteer cat-herders, a chair's first job is to determine the WG   consensus goals and milestones, keeping the charter up to date.   Next, often with the help of WG secretaries or document editors, the   chair must manage WG discussion, both on the list and by scheduling   meetings when appropriate.  Sometimes discussions get stuck on   contentious points and the chair may need to steer people toward   productive interaction and then declare when rough consensus has been   met and the discussion is over.  Sometimes chairs also manage   interactions with non-WG participants or the IESG, especially when a   WG document approaches publication.  Chairs have responsibility for   the technical and non-technical quality of WG output.  As you can   imagine given the mix of secretarial, interpersonal, and technical   demands, some Working Group chairs are much better at their jobs than   others.   When a WG has fulfilled its charter, it is supposed to cease   operations.  (Most WG mailing lists continue on after a WG is closed,   still discussing the same topics as the Working Group did.)  In the   IETF, it is a mark of success that the WG closes up because it   fulfilled its charter.  This is one of the aspects of the IETF that   newcomers who have experience with other standards bodies have a hard   time understanding.  However, some WG chairs never manage to get   their WG to finish, or keep adding new tasks to the charter so that   the Working Group drags on for many years.  The output of these aging   WGs is often not nearly as useful as the earlier products, and the   messy results are sometimes attributed to what's called "degenerative   Working Group syndrome".   There is an official distinction between WG drafts and independent   drafts, but in practice, sometimes there is not much procedural   difference.  For example, many WG mailing lists also discuss   independent drafts (at the discretion of the WG chair).  Procedures   for Internet Drafts are covered in much more detail later in this   document.   WG chairs are strongly advised to go to the WG leadership training   that usually happens on the Sunday preceding the IETF meeting.  There   is also usually a WG chairs lunch mid-week during the meeting where   chair-specific topics are presented and discussed.  If you're   interested in what they hear there, take a look at the slides at   http://edu.ietf.org/.5.2.  Getting Things Done in a Working Group   One fact that confuses many novices is that the face-to-face WG   meetings are much less important in the IETF than they are in most   other organizations.  Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting   must also gain consensus on the WG mailing list.  There are numerous   examples of important decisions made in WG meetings that are later   overturned on the mailing list, often because someone who couldn't   attend the meeting pointed out a serious flaw in the logic used to   come to the decision.  Finally, WG meetings aren't "drafting   sessions", as they are in some other standards bodies: in the IETF,   drafting is done elsewhere.   Another aspect of Working Groups that confounds many people is the   fact that there is no formal voting.  The general rule on disputed   topics is that the Working Group has to come to "rough consensus",   meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree.  The   exact method of determining rough consensus varies from Working Group   to Working Group.  Sometimes consensus is determined by "humming" --   if you agree with a proposal, you hum when prompted by the chair; if   you disagree, you keep your silence.  Newcomers find it quite   peculiar, but it works.  It is up to the chair to decide when the   Working Group has reached rough consensus.   The lack of formal voting has caused some very long delays for some   proposals, but most IETF participants who have witnessed rough   consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result   in better protocols.  (And, if you think about it, how could you have   "voting" in a group that anyone can join, and when it's impossible to   count the participants?)  Rough consensus has been defined in many   ways; a simple version is that it means that strongly held objections   must be debated until most people are satisfied that these objections   are wrong.   Some Working Groups have complex documents or a complex set of   documents (or even both).  Shaking all the bugs out of one or more   complex documents is a daunting task.  In order to help relieve this   problem, some Working Groups use "issue trackers", which are online   lists of the open issues with the documents, the status of the issue,   proposed fixes, and so on.  Using an issue tracker not only helps the   WG not to forget to do something important, it helps when someone   asks a question later about why something was done in a particular   fashion.   Another method that some Working Groups adopt is to have a Working   Group "secretary" to handle the juggling of the documents and the   changes.  The secretary can run the issue tracker if there is one, or   can simply be in charge of watching that all of the decisions that   are made on the mailing list are reflected in newer versions of the   documents.   One thing you might find helpful, and possibly even entertaining,   during Working Group sessions is to follow the running commentary on   the Jabber room associated with that Working Group.  The running   commentary is often used as the basis for the minutes of the meeting,   but it can also include jokes, sighs, and other extraneous chatter.   Jabber is a free, streaming XML technology mainly used for instant   messaging.  You can find pointers to Jabber clients for many   platforms at http://www.jabber.org.  The Jabber chatrooms have the   name of the Working Group followed by "@jabber.ietf.org".  Those   rooms are, in fact, available year-round, not just during IETF   meetings, and some are used by active Working Group participants   during protocol development.5.3.  Preparing for Working Group Meetings   The most important thing that everyone (newcomers and seasoned   experts) should do before coming to a face-to-face meeting is to read   the Internet Drafts and RFCs ahead of time.  WG meetings are   explicitly not for education: they are for developing the group's   documents.  Even if you do not plan to say anything in the meeting,   you should read the group's documents before attending so you can   understand what is being said.   It's up to the WG chair to set the meeting agenda, usually a few   weeks in advance.  If you want something discussed at the meeting, be   sure to let the chair know about it.  The agendas for all the WG   meetings are available in advance (see   http://www.ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_xx.html, where 'xx' is the   meeting number), but many WG chairs are lax (if not totally   negligent) about turning them in.   The Secretariat only schedules WG meetings a few weeks in advance,   and the schedule often changes as little as a week before the first   day.  If you are only coming for one WG meeting, you may have a hard   time booking your flight with such little notice, particularly if the   Working Group's meeting changes schedule.  Be sure to keep track of   the current agenda so you can schedule flights and hotels.  But, when   it comes down to it, you probably shouldn't be coming for just one WG   meeting.  It's likely that your knowledge could be valuable in a few   WGs, assuming that you've read the drafts and RFCs for those groups.   If you are on the agenda at a face-to-face meeting, you should   probably come with a few slides prepared.  But don't come with a   tutorial; people are supposed to read the drafts in advance.   Projectors for laptop-based presentations are available in all the   meeting rooms.   And here's a tip for your slides in WG or plenary presentations:   don't put your company's logo on every one, even though that is a   common practice outside the IETF.  The IETF frowns on this kind of   corporate advertising (except for the meeting sponsor in the plenary   presentation), and most presenters don't even put their logo on their   opening slide.  The IETF is about technical content, not company   boosterism.  Slides are often plain black and white for legibility,   with color used only when it really adds clarity.  Again, the content   is the most important part of the slides, not how it's presented.5.4.  Working Group Mailing Lists   As we mentioned earlier, the IETF announcement and discussion mailing   lists are the central mailing lists for IETF activities.  However,   there are many other mailing lists related to IETF work.  For   example, every Working Group has its own discussion list.  In   addition, there are some long-term technical debates that have been   moved off of the IETF list onto lists created specifically for those   topics.  It is highly recommended that you follow the discussions on   the mailing lists of the Working Groups that you wish to attend.  The   more work that is done on the mailing lists, the less work that will   need to be done at the meeting, leaving time for cross pollination   (i.e., attending Working Groups outside one's primary area of   interest in order to broaden one's perspective).   The mailing lists also provide a forum for those who wish to follow,   or contribute to, the Working Groups' efforts, but can't attend the   IETF meetings.  That's why IETF procedures require all decisions to   be confirmed "on the list" and you will often hear a WG chair say,   "Let's take it to the list" to close a discussion.   Many IETF discussion lists use either mailman or another list   manager, Majordomo.  They usually have a "-request" address that   handles the administrative details of joining and leaving the list.   (See Section 3.3 for more information on mailman.)  It is generally   frowned upon when such administrivia appears on the discussion   mailing list.   Most IETF discussion lists are archived.  That is, all of the   messages sent to the list are automatically stored on a host for   anonymous HTTP or FTP access.  Many such archives are listed online   at ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ or they are in a web-based   archive.  If you don't find the list you're looking for, send a   message to the list's "-request" address (not to the list itself!).   The Working Group charter listings at   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html are a useful source;   note that the page has links to old, concluded WGs.   Some WG lists apply size limits on messages, particularly to avoid   large documents or presentations landing in everyone's mailbox.  It   is well worth remembering that participants do not all have broadband   connections (and even those with broadband connections sometimes get   their mail on slow connections when they travel), so shorter messages   are greatly appreciated.  Documents can be posted as Internet Drafts;   presentation material can be posted to a web site controlled by the   sender or sent personally to people who ask for it.  Some WGs set up   special sites to hold these large documents so that senders can post   there first, then just send to the list the URL of the document.5.5.  Interim Working Group Meetings   Working Groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs.   Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, however -- a   group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location they're not fond   of and meet in Cancun (or even someplace mundane) three weeks later,   for example.  Interim meetings require AD approval and need to be   announced at least one month in advance.  Location and timing need to   allow fair access for all participants.  Like regular IETF meetings,   someone needs to take notes and send them to   mailto:proceedings@ietf.org, and the group needs to take attendance.   Decisions tentatively made during an interim WG meeting still must be   ratified on the mailing list.6.  BOFs   In order to form a Working Group, you need a charter and someone who   is able to be chair.  In order to get those things, you need to get   people interested so that they can help focus the charter and   convince an Area Director that the project is worthwhile.  A face-   to-face meeting is useful for this.  In fact, very few WGs get   started by an Area Director; most start after a face-to-face BOF   because attendees have expressed interest in the topic.   A Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting has to be approved by the Area   Director in the relevant area before it can be scheduled.  If you   think you really need a new WG, approach an AD informally with your   proposal and see what he or she thinks.  The next step is to request   a meeting slot at the next face-to-face meeting.  Of course, you   don't need to wait for that meeting to get some work done, such as   setting up a mailing list and starting to discuss a charter.   BOF meetings have a very different tone than do WG meetings.  The   purpose of a BOF is to make sure that a good charter with good   milestones can be created and that there are enough people willing to   do the work needed in order to create standards.  Some BOFs have   Internet Drafts already in process, whereas others start from   scratch.   An advantage of having a draft before the BOF is to help focus the   discussion.  On the other hand, having a draft might tend to limit   what the other folks in the BOF want to do in the charter.  It's   important to remember that most BOFs are held in order to get support   for an eventual Working Group, not to get support for a particular   document.   Many BOFs don't turn into WGs for a variety of reasons.  A common   problem is that not enough people can agree on a focus for the work.   Another typical reason is that the work wouldn't end up being a   standard -- if, for example, the document authors don't really want   to relinquish change control to a WG.  (We'll discuss change control   later in this document.)  Only two meetings of a BOF can be scheduled   on a particular subject; either a WG has to form or the topic should   be dropped.7.  New to the IETF and Coming to a Meeting? STOP HERE! (Temporarily)   If you're new to the IETF and this is the only reference you plan to   read before coming to the meeting, stop here -- at least temporarily.   Then, on your flight home, read the rest of the Tao.  By that time   you'll be ready to get actively involved in the Working Groups that   interested you at the meeting, and the Tao will get you started on   your way.   If you're planning to participate in the IETF remotely, through   reading email lists and the proceedings, read on!8.  RFCs and Internet Drafts   If you're a new IETF participant and are looking for a particular RFC   or Internet Draft, go to the RFC Editor's web pages, http://www.rfc-   editor.org/rfc.html.  That site also has links to other RFC   collections, many with search capabilities.  If you know the number   of the RFC you're looking for, go to the IETF RFC pages,   http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html.  For Internet Drafts, the best resource   is the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, where you can   search by title and keyword.8.1.  Getting an RFC Published   One of the most common questions seasoned IETFers hear from newcomers   is, "How do I get an IETF standard published?"  A much better   question is, "Should I write an IETF standard?" since the answer is   not always "yes."  If you do decide to try to write a document that   becomes an IETF standard, be warned that the overall process may be   arduous, even if the individual steps are fairly straightforward.   Lots of people get through the process unscathed, though, and there's   plenty of written guidance that helps authors emerge with their ego   more or less intact.   Every IETF standard is published as an RFC (a "Request for Comments,"   but everyone just calls them RFCs), and every RFC starts out as an   Internet Draft (often called an "I-D").  The basic steps for getting   something published as an IETF standard are as follows:   1.  Publish the document as an Internet Draft.   2.  Receive comments on the draft.   3.  Edit your draft based on the comments.   4.  Repeat steps 1 through 3 a few times.   5.  Ask an Area Director to take the draft to the IESG (if it's an       individual submission).  If the draft is an official Working       Group product, the WG chair asks the AD to take it to the IESG.   6.  Make any changes deemed necessary by the IESG (this might include       giving up on becoming a standard).   7.  Wait for the document to be published by the RFC Editor.   A much more complete explanation of these steps is contained in   [BCP9], "The Internet Standards Process".  Those who write drafts   that they hope will become IETF standards must read BCP 9 so that   they can follow the path of their document through the process.  BCP   9 (and various other documents that update it) goes into great detail   on a topic that is very often misunderstood, even by seasoned IETF   participants: different types of RFCs go through different processes   and have different rankings.  There are seven kinds of RFCs:Expand   o  Proposed standards   o  Draft standards   o  Internet standards (sometimes called "full standards")   o  Best Current Practice documents   o  Informational documents   o  Experimental protocols   o  Historic documents
EID 21 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 8.1Original Text: There are six kinds of RFCs:   o  Proposed standards   o  Draft standards   o  Internet standards (sometimes called "full standards")   o  Informational documents   o  Experimental protocols   o  Historic documentsCorrected Text:  There are seven kinds of RFCs:   o  Proposed standards   o  Draft standards   o  Internet standards (sometimes called "full standards")   o  Best Current Practice documents   o  Informational documents   o  Experimental protocols   o  Historic documents
Notes:
This enumeration omits the "Best Current Practice" documents.
The approval process for BCPs is quite different than Informational
RFCs. Because BCPs are so important, including their role in publishing
the the IETF Standards Process itself, they shoudl be included in this
list.
   Only the first three (proposed, draft, and full) are standards within   the IETF.  A good summary of this can be found in the aptly titled   [RFC1796], "Not All RFCs Are Standards".   There are also three sub-series of RFCs, known as FYIs, BCPs, and   STDs.  The For Your Information RFC sub-series was created to   document overviews and topics that are introductory or that appeal to   a broad audience; however, that series has not been added to in a   long time.  Best Current Practice documents describe the application   of various technologies in the Internet.  The STD RFC sub-series was   created to identify RFCs that do in fact specify Internet standards.   Some STDs are actually sets of more than one RFC, and the "standard"   designation applies to the whole set of documents.8.2.  Letting Go Gracefully   The biggest reason some people do not want their documents put on the   IETF standards track is that they must give up change control of the   protocol.  That is, as soon as you propose that your protocol become   an IETF standard, you must fully relinquish control of the protocol.   If there is general agreement, parts of the protocol can be   completely changed, whole sections can be ripped out, new things can   be added, and the name can be changed.   Some authors find it very hard to give up control of their pet   protocol.  If you are one of those people, don't even think about   trying to get your protocol to become an IETF standard.  On the other   hand, if your goal is the best standard possible with the widest   implementation, then you might find the IETF process to your liking.   Incidentally, the change control on Internet standards doesn't end   when the protocol is put on the standards track.  The protocol itself   can be changed later for a number of reasons, the most common of   which is that implementors discover a problem as they implement the   standard.  These later changes are also under the control of the   IETF, not the editors of the standards document.   IETF standards exist so that people will use them to write Internet   programs that interoperate.  They don't exist to document the   (possibly wonderful) ideas of their authors, nor do they exist so   that a company can say, "We have an IETF standard".  If a standards-   track RFC only has one implementation (whereas two are required for   it to advance on the standards track), it was probably a mistake to   put it on the standards track in the first place.8.3.  Internet Drafts   First things first.  Every document that ends up in the RFC   repository starts life as an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are   tentative documents -- they're meant for readers to comment on, so   authors can mull over those comments and decide which ones to   incorporate in the draft.  In order to remind folks of their   tentativeness, Internet Drafts are automatically removed from the   online directories after six months.  They are most definitely not   standards or even specifications.  As [BCP9] says:   "An Internet Draft is NOT a means of 'publishing' a specification;   specifications are published through the RFC mechanism....  Internet   Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at   any time.  Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be   referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-Proposal, nor should   a vendor claim compliance with an Internet Draft".   You can always tell a person who doesn't understand the IETF (or is   intentionally trying to fool people) when he or she brags about   having published an Internet Draft; it takes no significant effort.   When you submit an Internet Draft, you give some publication rights   to the IETF.  This is so that your Internet Draft is freely available   to everyone who wants to read and comment on it.  The rights you do   and don't give to the IETF are described in [BCP78], "IETF Rights in   Contributions".   There is a very useful checking tool at   http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht.  Using this tool   before you turn in an Internet Draft will help prevent the draft from   being rejected due to errors in form and formatting.   An I-D should have approximately the same format as an RFC.  Contrary   to many people's beliefs, an I-D does not need to look exactly like   an RFC, but if you can use the same formatting procedures used by the   RFC Editor when you create your I-Ds, it will simplify the RFC   Editor's work when your draft is published as an RFC.  [RFC2223],   "Instructions to RFC Authors", describes the nroff formatting used by   the RFC Editor.  There is also a tool called "xml2rfc", available   from http://xml.resource.org/, that takes XML-formatted text and   turns it into a valid Internet Draft.   An Internet Draft can be either a Working Group draft or an   individual submission.  Working Group drafts are usually reviewed by   the Working Group before being accepted as a WG item, although the   chairs have the final say.   If you're interested in checking the status of a particular draft, or   can't remember its exact name, or want to find out which drafts a WG   is working on, two handy tools are available.  The "Internet Drafts   Database Interface", at   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi, lets you search for   a draft by author, Working Group, date, or filename.  The "I-D   Tracker", at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi, is   especially useful for authors who want to track the progress of their   draft as it makes its way through the publication process.   There are some informal rules for Internet Draft naming that have   evolved over the years.  Internet Drafts that revise existing RFCs   often have draft names with "bis" in them, meaning "again" or   "twice"; for example, a draft might be called "draft-someone-   rfc2345bis-00.txt".8.3.1.  Recommended Reading for Writers   Before you create the first draft of your Internet Draft, you should   read four documents:   o  More important than just explaining formatting, [RFC2223] also      explains what needs to be in an Internet Draft before it can      become an RFC.  This document describes all the sections and      notices that will need to be in your document, and it's good to      have them there from the beginning so that readers aren't      surprised when you put them in later versions.   o  [BCP22], "Guide for Internet Standards Writers", provides tips      that will help you write a standard that leads to      interoperability.  For instance, it explains how to choose the      right number of protocol options, how to respond to out-of-spec      behavior, and how to show state diagrams.   o  The online "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts",      http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt, has up-to-date      information about the process for turning in Internet Drafts, as      well as the most current boilerplate information that has to be      included in each Internet Draft.   o  When you think you are finished with the draft process and are      ready to request that the draft become an RFC, you should      definitely read "Checklist for Internet Drafts (I-Ds) Submitted      for RFC Publication", http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html, a      list of common issues that have been known to stop documents in      the IESG.  In fact, you should probably read that document well      before you are finished, so that you don't have to make a bunch of      last-minute changes.   Also, you should visit the IETF Tools web pages,   http://tools.ietf.org, where you'll find pointers to other tools that   will automate some of your work for the IETF.8.3.2.  Filenames and Other Matters   When you're ready to turn in your Internet Draft, send it to the   Internet Drafts administrator at mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org.   There is a real person at the other end of this mail address, whose   job is to make sure you've included the minimum items you need for   the Internet Draft to be published.  When you submit the first   version of the draft, you also tell the draft administrator your   proposed filename for the draft.  If the draft is an official Working   Group product, the name will start with "draft-ietf-" followed by the   designation of the WG, followed by a descriptive word or two,   followed by "00.txt".   For example, a draft in the S/MIME WG about creating keys might be   named "draft-ietf-smime-keying-00.txt".  If it's not the product of a   Working Group, the name will start with "draft-" and the last name of   one of the authors followed by a descriptive word or two, followed by   "00.txt".  For example, a draft that someone named Smith wrote might   be named "draft-smith-keying-00.txt".  If a draft is an individual   submission but relates to a particular Working Group, authors   sometimes follow their name with the name of the Working Group, such   as "draft-smith-smime-keying-00.txt".  You are welcome to suggest   names; however, it is up to the Internet Drafts administrator (and,   if it is an official WG draft, the WG chair) to come up with the   filename.  If you follow the naming guidelines given at   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt, chances are quite good   that your suggested filename will be fine.   After the first edition of a draft, the number in the filename is   incremented; for instance, the second edition of the S/MIME draft   named above would be "draft-ietf-smime-keying-01.txt".  Note that   there are cases where the filename changes after one or more   versions, such as when a personal effort is pulled into a Working   Group; when a draft has its filename changed, the number reverts to   -00.  Be sure to let the Internet Drafts administrator know the   previous name of the draft when such a name change occurs so that the   databases can be kept accurate.8.4.  Standards-Track RFCs   The procedure for creating and advancing a standard is described in   [BCP9].  After an Internet Draft has been sufficiently discussed and   there is rough consensus that what it says would be a useful   standard, it is presented to the IESG for consideration.  If the   draft is an official WG draft, the WG chair sends it to the   appropriate Area Director after it has gone through Working Group   last call.  If the draft is an individual submission, the draft's   author or editor submits it to the appropriate Area Director.  BCP 9   also describes the appeals process for people who feel that a Working   Group chair, an AD, or the IESG has made the wrong decision in   considering the creation or advancement of a standard.   After the I-D is submitted to the IESG, the IESG announces an IETF-   wide last call.  This helps get the attention of people who weren't   following the progress of the draft, and it can sometimes cause   further changes to the draft.  It is also a time when people in the   WG who feel that they weren't heard can make their comments to   everyone.  The IETF last call is two weeks for drafts coming from WGs   and four weeks for individual submissions.   If the IESG approves the draft to become an Internet standard, they   ask the RFC Editor to publish it as a Proposed standard.  After it   has been a Proposed standard for at least six months, the RFC's   author (or the appropriate WG chair) can ask for it to become a Draft   standard.  Before that happens, however, someone needs to convince   the appropriate Area Director that there are at least two   independent, interoperable implementations of each part of the   standard.  This is a good test of the usefulness of the standard as a   whole, as well as an excellent way to check if the standard was   really readable.   A few things typically happen at this point.  First, it's common to   find that some of the specifications in the standard need to be   reworded because one implementor thought they meant one thing whereas   another implementor thought they meant something else.  Another   common occurrence is that none of the implementations actually tried   to implement a few of the features of the standard; these features   get removed not just because no one tested them but also because they   weren't needed.   Don't be surprised if a particular standard doesn't progress from   Proposed to Draft.  In fact, most of the standards in common use are   Proposed standards and never move forward.  This may be because no   one took the time to try to get them to Draft, or some of the   normative references in the standard are still at Proposed standard,   or it may be that everyone found more important things to do.   A few years after a document has been a Draft standard, it can become   an Internet standard, also known as "full standard" (it can happen in   as little as four months, but this is rare).  This doesn't happen   often, and it is usually reserved for protocols that are absolutely   required for the Internet to function.  The IESG goes over the   document with a fine-tooth comb and looks for evidence of widespread   deployment before making a Draft standard an Internet standard.8.4.1.  Telling It Like It Is -- Using MUST and SHOULD and MAY   Writing specifications that get implemented the way you want is a bit   of an art.  You can keep the specification very short, with just a   list of requirements, but that tends to cause implementors to take   too much leeway.  If you instead make the specification very wordy   with lots of suggestions, implementors tend to miss the requirements   (and often disagree with your suggestions anyway).  An optimal   specification is somewhere in between.   One way to make it more likely that developers will create   interoperable implementations of standards is to be clear about   what's being mandated in a specification.  Early RFCs used all kinds   of expressions to explain what was needed, so implementors didn't   always know which parts were suggestions and which were requirements.   As a result, standards writers in the IETF generally agreed to limit   their wording to a few specific words with a few specific meanings.   [STD3], "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support",   written way back in 1989, had a short list of words that had appeared   to be useful, namely, "must", "should", and "may".  These definitions   were updated and further refined in [BCP14], "Key words for use in   RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", which is widely referenced in   current Internet standards.  BCP 14 also specifically defines "must   not" and "should not", and it lists a few synonyms for the words   defined.   In a standard, in order to make it clear that you're using the   definitions from BCP 14, you should do two things.  First, refer to   BCP 14 (although most people refer to it as RFC 2119, because that's   what BCP 14 tells you to do), so that the reader knows how you're   defining your words.  Second, you should point out which instances of   the words you are using come from BCP 14.  The accepted practice for   this is to capitalize the words.  That is why you see "MUST" and   "SHOULD" capitalized in IETF standards.   BCP 14 is a short document, and it should be read by everyone who is   reading or writing IETF standards.  Although the definitions of   "must" and "must not" are fairly clear, the definitions of "should"   and "should not" cause a great deal of discussion in many WGs.  When   reviewing an Internet Draft, the question is often raised, "Should   that sentence have a MUST or a SHOULD in it?"  This is, indeed, a   very good question, because specifications shouldn't have gratuitous   MUSTs, but also should not have SHOULDs where a MUST is needed for   interoperability.  This goes to the crux of the question of over-   specifying and under-specifying requirements in standards.8.4.2.  Normative References in Standards   One aspect of writing IETF standards that trips up many novices (and   quite a few long-time IETF folks) is the rule about how to make   "normative references" to non-IETF documents or to other RFCs in a   standard.  A normative reference is a reference to a document that   must be followed in order to implement the standard.  A non-normative   reference (sometimes called an "informative reference") is one that   is helpful to an implementor but is not needed.   An IETF standard may make a normative reference to any other   standards-track RFC that is at the same standards level or higher, or   to any "open standard" that has been developed outside the IETF.  The   "same level or higher" rule means that before a standard can move   from Proposed to Draft, all of the RFCs for which there is a   normative reference must also be at Draft or Internet standard.  This   rule gives implementors assurance that everything in a Draft standard   or Internet standard is quite stable, even the things referenced   outside the standard.  This can also delay the publication of the   Draft or Internet standard by many months (sometimes even years)   while the other documents catch up.   There is no hard-and-fast rule about what is an "open standard", but   generally this means a stable standard that anyone can get a copy of   (although they might have to pay for it) and that was made by a   generally recognized standards group.  If the external standard   changes, you have to reference the particular instantiation of that   standard in your specification, as with a designation of the date of   the standard.  Some external standards bodies don't make old   standards available, which is a problem for IETF standards that need   to be used in the future.  When in doubt, a draft author should ask   the WG chair or appropriate Area Director if a particular external   standard can be used in an IETF standard.8.4.3.  IANA Considerations   More and more IETF standards require the registration of various   protocol parameters, such as named options in the protocol.  As we   noted in Section 3.2.4, the main registry for all IETF standards has   long been IANA.  Because of the large and diverse kinds of registries   that standards require, IANA needs to have specific information about   how to register parameters, what not to register, who (if anyone)   will decide what is to be registered, and so on.   Anyone writing an Internet standard that may need a new IANA registry   or new values in a current IANA registry needs to read [BCP26],   "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",   which describes how RFC authors should properly ask for IANA to start   or take over a registry.  IANA also maintains registries that were   started long before BCP 26 was produced.8.4.4.  Security Considerations   One thing that's required in every RFC and Internet Draft is a   "Security Considerations" section.  This section should describe any   known vulnerabilities of the protocol, possible threats, and   mechanisms or strategies to address them.  Don't gloss over this   section -- in particular, don't say, "Here's our protocol, if you   want security, just use IPsec".  This won't do at all, because it   doesn't answer the question of how IPsec interacts with your   protocol, and vice versa.  Be sure to check with your Working Group   chair if you're not sure how to handle this section in your draft.   See [BCP72], "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security   Considerations", for more information on writing good security   considerations sections.8.4.5.  Patents in IETF Standards   The problems of intellectual property have cropped up more and more   often in the past few years, particularly with respect to patents.   The goal of the IETF is to have its standards widely used and   validated in the marketplace.  If creating a product that uses a   standard requires getting a license for a patent, people are less   likely to implement the standard.  Not surprisingly, then, the   general rule has been "use good non-patented technology where   possible".   Of course, this isn't always possible.  Sometimes patents appear   after a standard has been established.  Sometimes there's a patent on   something that is so valuable that there isn't a non-patented   equivalent.  Sometimes the patent holder is generous and promises to   give all implementors of a standard a royalty-free license to the   patent, thereby making it almost as easy to implement as it would   have been if no patent existed.   The IETF's methods for dealing with patents in standards are a   subject of much debate.  The official rules for all intellectual   property rights (IRP) in IETF documents (not just patents) are   covered in [BCP78] and [BCP79], "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF   Technology".  Everyone who participates in IETF Working Groups will   probably find these documents interesting because they lay out the   rules that everyone agrees to follow.   Patent holders who freely allow their patents to be used by people   implementing IETF standards often get a great deal of goodwill from   the folks in the IETF.  Such generosity is more common than you might   think.  For example, RFC 1822 is a license from IBM for one of its   security patents, and the security community has responded very   favorably to IBM for this (whereas a number of other companies have   made themselves pariahs for their intractability on their security   patents).   If you are writing an Internet Draft and you know of a patent that   applies to the technology you're writing about, don't list the patent   in the document.  Instead, consult the IETF IPR Disclosure Page   linked off the main IETF web site to determine how to proceed.   Intellectual property rights aren't mentioned in RFCs because RFCs   never change after they are published, but knowledge of IPR can   change at any time.  Therefore, an IPR list in an RFC could be   incomplete and mislead the reader.  [BCP9] provides specific text   that should be added to RFCs where the author knows of IPR issues.8.5.  Informational and Experimental RFCs   As we noted earlier, not all RFCs are standards.  In fact, plenty of   important RFCs are not on the standards track at all.  Currently,   there are two designations for RFCs that are not meant to be   standards: Informational, like the Tao, and Experimental.  (There is   actually a third designation, Historic, but that is reserved for   documents that were on the standards track and have been removed due   to lack of current use, or that more recent thinking indicates the   technology is actually harmful to the Internet.)   The role of Informational RFCs is often debated in the IETF.  Many   people like having them, particularly for specifications that were   created outside the IETF but are referenced by IETF documents.  They   are also useful for specifications that are the precursors for work   being done by IETF Working Groups.  On the other hand, some people   refer to Informational RFCs as "standards" even though the RFCs are   not standards, usually to fool the gullible public about something   that the person is selling or supporting.  When this happens, the   debate about Informational RFCs is renewed.   Experimental RFCs are for specifications that may be interesting, but   for which it is unclear if there will be much interest in   implementing them, or whether they will work once deployed.  That is,   a specification might solve a problem, but if it is not clear that   many people think that the problem is important, or think that they   will bother fixing the problem with the specification, the   specification might be labeled an Experimental RFC.  If, later, the   specification becomes popular (or proves that it works well), it can   be re-issued as a standards-track RFC.  Experimental RFCs are also   used to get people to experiment with a technology that looks like it   might be standards-track material, but for which there are still   unanswered questions.   The IESG has created guidelines on how it chooses between   Informational and Experimental status:   http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html.  If you are creating a   document that you think might become an Experimental RFC, knowing the   current thinking will help you justify your proposed choice.9.  How to Contribute to the IETF9.1.  What You Can Do   *Read* -- Review the Internet Drafts in your area of expertise and   comment on them in the Working Groups.  Participate in the discussion   in a friendly, helpful fashion, with the goal being the best Internet   standards possible.  Listen much more than you speak.  If you   disagree, debate the technical issues: never attack the people.   *Implement* -- Write programs that use the current Internet   standards.  The standards aren't worth much unless they are available   to Internet users.  Implement even the "minor" standards, since they   will become less minor if they appear in more software.  Report any   problems you find with the standards to the appropriate Working Group   so that the standard can be clarified in later revisions.  One of the   oft-quoted tenets of the IETF is "running code wins", so you can help   support the standards you want to become more widespread by creating   more running code.   *Write* -- Edit or co-author Internet Drafts in your area of   expertise.  Do this for the benefit of the Internet community, not to   get your name (or, even worse, your company's name) on a document.   Draft authors are subject to all kinds of technical (and sometimes   personal) criticism; receive it with equanimity and use it to improve   your draft in order to produce the best and most interoperable   standard.9.2.  What Your Company Can Do   *Share* -- Avoid proprietary standards.  If you are an implementor,   exhibit a strong preference for IETF standards.  If the IETF   standards aren't as good as the proprietary standards, work to make   the IETF standards better.  If you're a purchaser, avoid products   that use proprietary standards that compete with the open standards   of the IETF and tell the companies you buy from that you are doing   so.   *Open Up* -- If your company controls a patent that is used in an   IETF standard, convince the company to make the patent available at   no cost to everyone who is implementing the standard.  In the past   few years, patents have caused a lot of serious problems for Internet   standards because they prevent some companies from being able to   freely implement the standards.  Fortunately, many companies have   generously offered unlimited licenses for particular patents in order   to help the IETF standards flourish.  These companies are usually   rewarded with positive publicity for the fact that they are not as   greedy or short-sighted as other patent-holders.   *Join* -- Become a member of ISOC.  More important, urge any company   that has benefited from the Internet to become a corporate member of   ISOC, since this has the greatest financial benefit for the group.   It will, of course, also benefit the Internet as a whole.10.  IETF and the Outside World10.1.  IETF and Other Standards Groups   As much as many IETF participants would like to think otherwise, the   IETF does not exist in a standards vacuum.  There are many (perhaps   too many) other standards organizations whose decisions affect the   Internet.  There are also a fair number of standards bodies that   ignored the Internet for a long time and now want to get a piece of   the action.   In general, the IETF tries to have cordial relationships with other   significant standards bodies.  This isn't always easy, since many   other bodies have very different structures than the IETF does, and   the IETF is mostly run by volunteers who would probably prefer to   write standards rather than meet with representatives from other   bodies.  Even so, some other standards bodies make a great effort to   interact well with the IETF despite the obvious cultural differences.   At the time of this writing, the IETF has some liaisons with large   standards bodies, including the ITU (International Telecommunication   Union), the W3C, the Unicode Consortium, and ISO/IEC JTC1 (Joint   Technical Committee of the International Organization for   Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission).  As   stated in the IAB Charter [BCP39], "Liaisons are kept as informal as   possible and must be of demonstrable value in improving the quality   of IETF specifications".  In practice, the IETF prefers liaisons to   take place directly at Working Group level, with formal relationships   and liaison documents in a backup role.   Some of these liaison tasks fall to the IESG, whereas others fall to   the IAB.  Detail-oriented readers will learn much about the formal   methods for dealing with other standards bodies in [BCP102], "IAB   Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships", and   [BCP103], "Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the   IETF".  The best place to check to see whether the IETF has any   formal liaison at all is the list of IETF liaisons,   www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html.  The list shows that there are   many different liaisons to ISO/IEC JTC1 subcommittees.10.2.  Press Coverage of the IETF   Given that the IETF is one of the best-known bodies that is helping   move the Internet forward, it's natural for the computer press (and   even the trade press) to want to cover its actions.  In recent years,   a small number of magazines have assigned reporters and editors to   cover the IETF in depth over a long period of time.  These reporters   have ample scars from articles that they got wrong, incorrect   statements about the status of Internet Drafts, quotes from people   who are unrelated to the IETF work, and so on.   Major press errors fall into two categories: saying that the IETF is   considering something when in fact there is just an Internet Draft in   a Working Group, and saying that the IETF approved something when all   that happened was that an Informational RFC was published.  In both   cases, the press is not fully to blame for the problem, since they   are usually alerted to the story by a company trying to get publicity   for a protocol that they developed or at least support.  Of course, a   bit of research by the reporters would probably get them in contact   with someone who could straighten them out, such as a WG chair or an   Area Director.  The default press contact for the IETF is the IAD,   who can be reached at mailto:iad@ietf.org.   The fact that those reporters who've gotten it wrong once still come   back to IETF meetings shows that it is possible to get it right   eventually.  However, IETF meetings are definitely not for reporters   who are naive about the IETF process (although if you are a reporter   the fact that you are reading this document is a very good sign!).   Furthermore, if you think that you'll get a hot story from attending   an IETF meeting, you are likely to be disappointed.   Considering all this, it's not surprising that some IETFers would   prefer to have the press stay as far away from meetings as possible.   Having a bit of press publicity for protocols that are almost near   completion and will become significant in the industry in the next   year can be a good thing.  However, it is the rare reporter who can   resist over-hyping a nascent protocol as the next savior for the   Internet.  Such stories do much more harm than good, both for the   readers of the article and for the IETF.   The main reason why a reporter might want to attend an IETF meeting   is not to cover hot technologies (since that can be done in the   comfort of your office by reading the mailing lists) but to meet   people face-to-face.  Unfortunately, the most interesting people are   the ones who are also the busiest during the IETF meeting, and some   folks have a tendency to run away when they see a press badge.   However, IETF meetings are excellent places to meet and speak with   document authors and Working Group chairs; this can be quite valuable   for reporters who are covering the progress of protocols.   Reporters who want to find out about "what the IETF is doing" on a   particular topic would be well-advised to talk to more than one   person who is active on that topic in the IETF, and should probably   try to talk to the WG chair in any case.  It's impossible to   determine what will happen with a draft by looking at the draft or   talking to the draft's author.  Fortunately, all WGs have archives   that a reporter can look through for recent indications about what   the progress of a draft is; unfortunately, few reporters have the   time or inclination to do this kind of research.  Because the IETF   doesn't have a press liaison, magazines or newspapers that run a   story with errors won't hear directly from the IETF and therefore   often won't know what they did wrong, so they might easily do it   again later.11.  Security Considerations   Section 8.4.4 explains why each RFC is required to have a Security   Considerations section and gives some idea of what it should and   should not contain.  Other than that information, this document does   not touch on Internet security.Appendix A.  Related InformationA.1.  Why "the Tao"?   Pronounced "dow", Tao is the basic principle behind the teachings of   Lao-tse, a Chinese master.  Its familiar symbol is the black-and-   white yin-yang circle.  Taoism conceives the universe as a single   organism, and human beings as interdependent parts of a cosmic whole.   Tao is sometimes translated "the way", but according to Taoist   philosophy the true meaning of the word cannot be expressed in words.A.2.  Useful Email Addresses   Some useful email addresses are listed here.  These addresses may   change from time to time, and it's a good idea to check the IETF web   pages for the correct address before sending your mail.   Address                    Description   -----------------------------------------------------------------   agenda@ietf.org            Requests for agenda slots at IETF                              meetings   ietf-action@ietf.org       Requests for things to be done when you                              don't know exactly where to send the                              request   ietf-info@ietf.org         General questions about the IETF   ietf-registrar@ietf.org    Questions about registration, meeting                              locations, and fees   ietf-request@ietf.org      Requests to join/leave IETF lists   ietf-secretary@ietf.org    Questions for the Secretariat   ietf-web@ietf.org          Questions or comments about the IETF                              web site   internet-drafts@ietf.org   Internet Draft submissions and queries   proceedings@ietf.org       Where to send Working Group minutes and                              slides for the IETF Proceedings   iana@iana.org              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority   rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org  RFC Editor   statements@ietf.org        Incoming liaison statements from other                              organizations   Online upload pages are planned for the future to facilitate   submission of Internet Drafts, Proceedings, and Liaison statements.A.3.  Useful Documents and Files   The IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org, is the best source for   information about meetings, Working Groups, Internet Drafts, RFCs,   IETF email addresses, and much more.  Click on "Additional   Information" to find a variety of helpful links.  Internet Drafts and   other documents are also available in the "ietf" directory on   anonymous FTP sites worldwide.  For a listing of these sites, see   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.   Check the IESG web pages, http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html, to find up-   to-date information about drafts processed, RFCs published, and   documents in Last Call, as well as the monthly IETF status reports.A.4.  Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Tao   Some of the acronyms and abbreviations from this document are listed   below.   Term          Meaning   -----------------------------------------------------------------   AD            Area Director   BCP           Best Current Practice   BOF           Birds of a Feather   FAQ           Frequently Asked Question(s)   FYI           For Your Information (RFC)   IAB           Internet Architecture Board   IAD           IETF Administrative Director   IANA          Internet Assigned Numbers Authority   IAOC          IETF Administrative Oversight Committee   IASA          IETF Administrative Support Activity   ICANN         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and                        Numbers, http://www.icann.org/   I-D           Internet Draft   IESG          Internet Engineering Steering Group,                        http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html   IETF          Internet Engineering Task Force,                     http://www.ietf.org/   INET          Internet Society Conference,                        http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/   IPR           Intellectual property rights   IRTF          Internet Research Task Force, http://www.irtf.org/   ISO           International Organization for Standardization,                        http://www.iso.ch/   ISO-IEC/JTC1  Joint Technical Committee of the International                        Organization for Standardization and                        International Electrotechnical Commission,                        http://www.jtc1.org/   ISOC          Internet Society, http://www.isoc.org   ITU           International Telecommunication Union,                        http://www.itu.int   RFC           Request for Comments   STD           Standard (RFC)   W3C           World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org/   WG            Working GroupAppendix B.  IETF Guiding Principles   If you've gotten this far in the Tao, you've learned a lot about how   the IETF works.  What you'll find in this appendix summarizes much of   what you've read and adds a few new points to ponder.  Be sure to   read through all the principles; taken as a whole, they'll give you a   new slant on what makes the IETF work.B.1.  General   P1.   The IETF works by an open process and by rough consensus.  This         applies to all aspects of the operation of the IETF, including         creation of IETF documents and decisions on the processes that         are used.  But the IETF also observes experiments and running         code with interest, and this should also apply to the         operational processes of the organization.   P2.   The IETF works in areas where it has, or can find, technical         competence.   P3.   The IETF depends on a volunteer core of active participants.   P4.   Membership of the IETF or of its WGs is not fee-based or         organizationally defined, but is based upon self-identification         and active participation by individuals.B.2.  Management and Leadership   P5.   The IETF recognizes leadership positions and grants power of         decision to the leaders, but decisions are subject to appeal.   P6.   Delegation of power and responsibility are essential to the         effective working of the IETF.  As many individuals as possible         will be encouraged to take on leadership of IETF tasks.   P7.   Dissent, complaint, and appeal are a consequence of the IETF's         nature and should be regarded as normal events, but ultimately         it is a fact of life that certain decisions cannot be         effectively appealed.   P8.   Leadership positions are for fixed terms (although we have no         formal limitation on the number of terms that may be served).   P9.   It is important to develop future leaders within the active         community.   P10.  A community process is used to select the leadership.   P11.  Leaders are empowered to make the judgment that rough         consensus has been demonstrated.  Without formal membership,         there are no formal rules for consensus.B.3.  Process   P12.  Although the IETF needs clear and publicly documented process         rules for the normal cases, there should be enough flexibility         to allow unusual cases to be handled according to common sense.         We apply personal judgment and only codify when we're certain.         (But we do codify who can make personal judgments.)   P13.  Technical development work should be carried out by tightly         chartered and focused Working Groups.   P14.  Parts of the process that have proved impractical should be         removed or made optional.B.4.  Working Groups   P15.  Working Groups (WGs) should be primarily responsible for the         quality of their output, and therefore for obtaining early         review; WG chairs as WG leaders, backed up by the IETF         leadership, should act as a quality backstop.   P16.  WGs should be primarily responsible for assessing the negative         impact of their work on the Internet as a whole, and therefore         for obtaining cross-area review; the IETF leadership should act         as a cross-area backstop.   P17.  Early review of documents is more effective in dealing with         major problems than late review.   P18.  Area Directors (ADs) are responsible for guiding the formation         and chartering of WGs, for giving them direction as necessary,         and for terminating them.   P19.  WG chairs are responsible for ensuring that WGs execute their         charters, meet their milestones, and produce deliverables that         are ready for publication.   P20.  ADs are responsible for arranging backstop review and final         document approval.B.5.  Documents   P21.  IETF documents often start as personal drafts, may become WG         drafts, and are approved for permanent publication by a         leadership body independent of the WG or individuals that         produced them.   P22.  IETF documents belong to the community, not to their authors.         But authorship is recognized and valued, as are lesser         contributions than full authorship.   P23.  Technical quality and correctness are the primary criteria for         reaching consensus about documents.   P24.  IETF specifications may be published as Informational,         Experimental, Standards Track, or Best Current Practice.   P25.  IETF Standards Track specifications are not considered to be         satisfactory standards until interoperable independent         implementations have been demonstrated.  (This is the         embodiment of the "running code" slogan.)  But, on legal         advice, the IETF does not take responsibility for         interoperability tests and does not certify interoperability.   P26.  IETF processes are currently published as Best Current Practice         documents.   P27.  Useful information that is neither a specification nor a         process may be published as Informational.   P28.  Obsolete or deprecated specifications and processes may be         downgraded to Historic.   P29.  The standards track should distinguish specifications that have         been demonstrated to interoperate.   P30.  Standards Track and Best Current Practice documents must be         subject to IETF wide rough consensus (Last Call process).  WG         rough consensus is normally sufficient for other documents.   P31.  Substantive changes made after a document leaves a WG must be         referred back to the WG.   P32.  The IETF determines requirements for publication and archiving         of its documents.Informative References   [BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.   [BCP10]    Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and              Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall              Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.   [BCP11]    Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in              the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October              1996.   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.   [BCP22]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.   [BCP25]    Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.   [BCP26]    Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,              October 1998.   [BCP39]    Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of              the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,              May 2000.   [BCP45]    Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, RFC              3005, November 2000.   [BCP72]    Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July              2003.   [BCP78]    Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC              3978, March 2005.   [BCP79]    Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.   [BCP95]    Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP              95, RFC 3935, October 2004.   [BCP101]   Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF              Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC              4071, April 2005.   [BCP102]   Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Processes              for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships", BCP 102,              RFC 4052, April 2005.   [BCP103]   Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for              Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF", BCP              103, RFC 4053, April 2005.   [RFC1796]  Huitema, C., Postel, J., and S. Crocker, "Not All RFCs are              Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995.   [RFC2223]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",              RFC 2223, October 1997.   [STD3]     Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application              and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.Authors' Addresses   Paul Hoffman   VPN Consortium   127 Segre Place   Santa Cruz, CA  95060   US   EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org   Susan Harris   1722 Chandler Road   Ann Arbor, MI  48104   US   EMail: srh@umich.eduFull Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained in BCP 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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found in BCP 78 and BCP 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 at   http://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 provided by the IETF   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).            


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp