[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: April 14, 2008                                   QUALCOMM, Inc.
                                                         11 October 2007

             Experiment in Study Group Formation within the
                 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   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

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction .................................................  3
    1.1   Requirements ...........................................  4
2.  Study Group Formation ........................................  4
3.  The Experiment ...............................................  6
    3.1  Success Metrics .........................................  6
4.  Security Considerations ......................................  7
5.  IANA Considerations ..........................................  7
6.  References ...................................................  7
    6.1  Normative References ....................................  7
    6.2  Informative References ..................................  7
Acknowledgments ..................................................  8
Author's Addresses ...............................................  8
Full Copyright Statement .........................................  9
Intellectual Property ............................................  9

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 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 RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1:

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

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

   This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
   Working Group formation process, known as the Study Group.  Study
   Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for
   Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to
   conclude within a short time frame, with limited opportunities for
   milestone extension.

   This Study Group experiment does not alter the Working Group
   formation guidelines described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1, or
   the Internet Standards Process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
   Rather it builds on these existing processes, introducing an element
   of formality which may be useful in clarifying IESG and/or IAB
   concerns relating to Working Group formation criteria and motivating
   more rapid progress toward their resolution.  Since Study Group
   documents (including the SG Charter and potential WG 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.

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007

1.1.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Study Group Formation

   If at any point during the Working Group formation process, relevance
   to the Internet community and interest within the IETF and end-user
   community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working Group
   formation criteria outlined in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not
   yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed.
   Study Groups MAY be created as the first step toward Working Group
   formation, or as an intermediate step between an initial Birds of a
   Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation.  The formation of a
   Study Group after a second BoF is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   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 a period of
   six months to twelve months, with six months being the default.
   While the IESG MAY extend the initial Study Group milestones by an
   additional six months, extensions beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED.
   The Study Group Charter SHOULD include at least the following "basic

      o Development of a Working Group Charter.

      o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of
        the Working Group formation criteria described in
        RFC 2418 [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 standards track documents or protocol

   Since the 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
   WG are likely to be met if the SG successfully completes the basic

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007

3.  The Experiment

   This experiment runs for a period of 18 months from IESG approval of
   the experiment.  During the period of the experiment, the IESG MAY
   approve formation of as many as three 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.

   Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Study Groups to
   be handled identically to Working Groups in terms of IETF process,
   tools and infrastructure; no additional burden is to be imposed on
   the IETF Secretariat.  Other than the abbreviated Study Group
   charter, the process for formation of a Study Group is identical to
   that of a Working Group, including review by the IAB and IESG,
   announcement of the potential Study Group, and request for review by
   the IETF community.  The operating rules of a Study Group (openness,
   meeting requirements, etc.) are identical to Working Groups.  From
   the point of view of IETF infrastructure (tools, membership in the
   WGCHAIRS mailing list, process rules, Study Group 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 processes (including PROTO sheparding) 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 Working Group Charter, review of the formation
   criteria, problem statement or requirements document, etc. )

3.1.  Success Metrics

   Since one of the goals of this experiment is to enable the more rapid
   formation of Working Groups, the success of an individual Study
   Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the
   progress made toward Working Group formation.  Useful metrics

Progress on Basic Milestones
     A Study Group that does not make progress on its basic milestones
     cannot be judged successful, regardless of its other achievements,
     such as progress on a literature review or requirements document.
     Progress on the basic milestones is measured by whether they are
     completed within the time-frame specified in the initial Study

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007

     Group Charter, and whether feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF
     community is positive, leading the IESG to vote to form a Working

Mailing List Activity
     Since one of the goals of the Study Group experiment is to avoid a
     potential loss of interest among participants, evidence of
     continued engagement on the part of Study Group participants based
     on mailing list activity is a potential success metric.
     Conversely, a Study Group whose mailing list shows minimal traffic
     would probably not be a good candidate for milestone extension.

4.  Security Considerations

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

5.  IANA Considerations

   This draft requires no action by IANA.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

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

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007


   The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas
   Narten, Lars Eggert, Eric Rescorla, Sam Hartman 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
   5775 Morehouse Dr
   San Diego, CA

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

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

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Study Group Experiment          11 October 2007

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

   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-


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

Aboba & Dondeti               Experimental                      [Page 9]

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