[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5111

Network Working Group                                           B. Aboba
Internet-Draft                                     Microsoft Corporation
Intended Status: Experimental                                 L. Dondeti
Expires: January 6, 2008                                  QUALCOMM, Inc.
                                                            29 July 2007


             Experiment in Study Group Formation within the
                 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
                    draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document describes an RFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group
   formation process, known as the Study Group.  Study Groups may be
   created as the first step toward Working Group formation, or as an
   intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and
   Working Group creation.  Study Groups are focused on completion of
   prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they have
   a short life-time, with limited opportunities for milestone
   extension.



Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


Table of Contents

1.  Introduction .................................................  3
    1.1   Requirements ...........................................  4
2.  Study Group Formation ........................................  4
3.  The Experiment ...............................................  6
4.  Security Considerations ......................................  6
5.  IANA Considerations ..........................................  6
6.  References ...................................................  6
    6.1  Normative References ....................................  6
    6.2  Informative References ..................................  7
Acknowledgments ..................................................  7
Author's Addresses ...............................................  7
Full Copyright Statement .........................................  8
Intellectual Property ............................................  8




































Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


1.  Introduction

   "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" [RFC2418] describes
   the Working Group formation process within the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  As noted in [RFC2418] Section 2.1:

      When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working
      group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several
      issues:

      - Are the issues that the working group plans to address
        clear and relevant to the Internet community?

      - Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and
        achievable within a reasonable time frame?

      - What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine
        the level of effort required?

      - Do the working group's activities overlap with those of
        another working group?
        ...

      - Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working
        group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort
        to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?
        ...

      - Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working
        group's topic, and are those people interested in
        contributing in the working group?
        ...

      - Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to
        exist for the planned work?
        ...

      - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the
        determination of the technology?
        ...

      - Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to
        the proposed working group's efforts issues understood?

      - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an
        attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of
        input from IETF participants may be limited?




Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


      - Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is
        relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to
        pursue?  This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere.

      - Do the working group's goals overlap with known work in
        another standards body, and if so is adequate liaison
        in place?

   In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants
   and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet
   community may be demonstrated, the answer to other questions (such as
   an understanding of existing work, achievability of goals, or overlap
   with existing working groups or standards bodies) may not be as
   clear.  In the past, the likely outcome in this circumstance has been
   to postpone Working Group formation or even additional Birds of a
   Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.
   However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential
   Working Group officially undetermined for months or even years.
   While the Area Directors should provide potential Working Group
   participants timely updates on the status of the potential Working
   Group and insight into IESG or IAB concerns, currently there is no
   mechanism to track progress toward working group creation, and as a
   result, participants may not have a clear understanding of the status
   or the next steps.  Also, the lack of formal recognition may
   negatively affect the motivation of the participants, and may leave
   those who have no followed the effort closely with an impression that
   no work is going on.

   This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
   Working Group formation process, known as the Study Group.  Study
   Groups MAY be created as the first step toward Working Group
   formation, or as an intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather
   (BOF) session and Working Group creation.  Study Groups MAY be formed
   by the IESG when there is evidence of clear interest in a topic on
   the part of IETF participants and end-users, but other criteria
   relating to Working Group formation (including creation of a
   satisfactory Charter) have not yet been met.  Since this Study Group
   experiment is not intended as a substitute for the existing Working
   Group formation process, Study Groups SHOULD be formed only in
   situations where the prerequisites for formation of a Working Group
   have not been met, or are not likely to be met as the result of a
   first or second Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session.

   Study Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for
   Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to
   conclude within a six to twelve month time frame, with limited
   opportunities for milestone extension.  This Study Group experiment
   does not alter the Working Group formation guidelines described in



Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


   [RFC2418] Section 2.1, the processes relating to BoFs [BOF]  or the
   Internet Standards Process described in [RFC2026].  Rather it builds
   on these existing processes, introducing an element of formality
   which may be useful in clarifying IESG and/or IAB concerns relating
   to Working Group formation criteria and motivating more rapid
   progress toward their resolution.  Since Study Group documents
   (including the Charter) are reviewed and comments are tracked using
   existing tools and processes, feedback is available to Study Group
   chairs and authors, providing for transparency and accountability.

1.1.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Study Group Formation

   If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
   after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF and
   end-user community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working
   Group formation criteria outlined in [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not
   yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed.

   Since the goal of a Study Group is to put in place the prerequisites
   for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than might otherwise be
   possible, Study Groups SHOULD initially be chartered for completion
   within six to twelve months.  While the IESG MAY extend the initial
   Study Group milestones by an additional six months, extensions beyond
   this are NOT RECOMMENDED.  The Charter for a Study Group SHOULD
   include at least the following milestones:

      o Development of a Working Group Charter.

      o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of
        the Working Group formation criteria described in
        [RFC2418] Section 2.1.

   The IESG MAY also include additional milestones within a Study Group
   charter (such as development of a problem statement or requirements
   document and/or completion of a review of the literature or current
   practices), as long as these additional milestones do not compromise
   the ability of the Study Group to deliver on the basic milestones in
   a timely way.  A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones
   relating to development of a protocol specification.






Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


3.  The Experiment

   This experiment runs for a period of 18 months.  During the
   experiment period, the IESG MAY approve formation of one or more
   Study Groups.  The IESG MUST inform the community in a public
   statement of any decisions for Study Group formation approved under
   this experiment.  Such a statement SHOULD include a description of
   specific Study Group that was formed.

   Other than the abbreviated charter, the process for formation of a
   Study Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including
   announcement of the potential Study Group and a request for feedback
   from the IETF community.  From the point of view of IETF
   infrastructure (tools, membership in the WGCHAIRS mailing list,
   process rules, Charter pages, etc.) Study Groups are treated
   identically to Working Groups, with the exception that Study Group
   names should include "SG" within the name (e.g. "EXAMPLESG"), so as
   to clearly differentiate them from Working Groups.

   Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools
   and process as other IETF documents; this allows feedback to be
   viewed by Study Group Chairs and participants, as well as providing
   additional clarity on next steps.  Formation of a Study Group
   requires the appointment of a Study Group Chair, and a well defined
   set of Working Group formation criteria (agreement on the Charter,
   review of the formation criteria, problem statement or requirements
   document, etc. )

4.  Security Considerations

   This document describes an experiment in the formation of Study
   Groups.  It has no security considerations.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This draft requires no action by IANA.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

[RFC2026]
     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC
     2026, October 1996.

[RFC2418]
     Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
     25, RFC 2418, September 1998.



Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


[RFC2119]
     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
     Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3933]
     Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process Experiments",
     BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004.

6.2.  Informative References

[BOF]
     Narten, T., "Considerations for Having a Successful BOF", draft-
     narten-successful-bof-02 (work in progress), March 2007.


Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas
   Narten and John Klensin for valuable input.

Authors' Addresses

   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
   Phone: +1 425 706 6605
   Fax:   +1 425 936 7329

   Lakshminath Dondeti
   QUALCOMM, Inc.
   5775 Morehouse Dr
   San Diego, CA
   USA

   Phone: +1 858-845-1267
   Email: ldondeti@qualcomm.com












Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment             29 July 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found 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.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/