Creating an IETF Working Group DraftJuniper Networksadrian@olddog.co.ukBrandenburg InternetWorking675 Spruce DriveSunnyvaleCA94086USA+1.408.246.8253dcrocker@bbiw.net
General
IETF process working group draft adoption creationThe productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as mandated by the working
group's charter. When a working group is ready to develop a particular document it
usually "adopts" it as a working group draft. The document that a working group adopts
and then develops further is based on initial input at varying levels of maturity. An
initial working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it might be a
blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it might represent any level of
maturity in between. This document discusses how a working group typically handles the
formal documents that it targets for publication. The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as mandated by the working
group's charter. Working groups develop these documents based on initial input of
varying levels of maturity. An initial working group draft might be a document already
in wide use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it
might represent any level of maturity in between. This document discusses how a working
group typically handles the formal documents that it targets for publication. The
discussion applies only to the IETF and does not cover IRTF groups, where practices vary
widely.Within the general constraints of formal IETF process and the specific constraints of a
working group's charter, there can be considerable freedom in the adoption and
development of drafts. As with most IETF activities, the ultimate arbiter of such
choices is working group agreement, within the constraints of its charter. As with most
working group management, this agreement might be explicit or implicit, depending upon
the efficiencies that the group deems appropriate.This draft is intentionally non-normative. It is meant as a
guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of what is
permissible.Working Group drafts are documents that are subject to IETF Working Group revision
control, with advancement for publication as an RFC requiring rough consensus in the
working group. Adoption of the draft by the working group, and substantive changes to
the document, need to represent working group rough consensus. Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as Internet Drafts
(I-D) . Working groups use this mechanism for producing
their official output, per Section 7.2 of and Section 8.3
of . The convention for identifying an I-D formally under
the ownership of a working group is by the inclusion of "ietf" in the second field of
the I-D filename and the working group name in the third field, per Section 7 of
. That is: Responsibility for direct revision of a working group I-D is assigned to its editors
and authors. See for discussion about their selection and
role.A core premise of IETF working groups is that the working group has final authority
over the content of its documents, within the constraints of the working group
charter. No individual has special authority for the content. The chairs task
document authors/editors and can formulate design teams, but the content of working
group documents is always, ultimately, subject to working group approval. Approval is
described in terms of the IETF's "rough consensus" construct, which is the prime
example of the IETF's preference for pragmatics over niceties. Unanimous agreement is
always desirable, but more approximate (rough) agreement will suffice, as long as it
is clear and strong. Further discussion of the nature of rough consensus can be found
in .Other than for selection of document authors/editors, as discussed in , working group decision-making about document management is
subject to normal IETF process rules. Useful descriptions of this process for a
working group are in Section 3.3 of and Section 5.2 of
.In formal terms, a working group raises and discusses each item of document content.
For difficult topics and/or difficult working group dynamics, this is the required
mode. It is laborious, but diligent, and it validates progress at each step along the
way. At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable authority over
content, but this is (merely) for efficiency. That is, the chairs can permit authors
and editors to proceed with an implied (default) working group agreement, as long as
the working group is comfortable with that mode. Of course the benefit in the mode is
efficiency, but its risk is failure to retain or verify actual consensus among the
working group participants. When a working group is operating in the mode of active,
direct author content development, an easy validation method is simply to have chairs
query the working group when a new document version appears, asking for comments and
concerns.In general when it is not completely obvious what the opinion of the working group
is, working group chairs can poll the working group to find out. As with any other
consensus question, the form in which it is asked can make a difference. In
particular, a general 'yes/no' question often is not as helpful as asking supporters
and detractors of a draft to provide their reasons, not merely their preferences. In
effect, this treats the matter of consensus as an on-going discussion. Ideally one
that can produce changes in the document or in participant views, or both.The purpose of this document is to discuss the criteria and sequence typically
followed when adopting and developing a formal IETF working group document.
Therefore, this document considers the following questions that are particularly
relevant to working group chairs who are charged with running the process: How do working group chairs decide which drafts to adopt and when? Is it necessary to poll the working group explicitly, and what does a
working group poll look like?How do working group chairs make the decision?What are the process steps the working group will choose to use, for an
I-D to become a WG I-D?Are there any special cases?Can a document be created as a WG I-D from scratch?How can competing drafts be handled?Can an Individual I-D be under the care of a WG?To adopt a new working group document, the chairs often: Inform the working group of the intent.Check for known IPR that needs to be disclosed, using some technique like
those described in Obtain working group rough consensus.Choose document editors.Pre-approve the document as an Internet Draft, using .Tell the editors to submit the -00 version of the document.Request Secretariat to ensure that the Datatracker records that the old
internet-draft has been replaced by the new working group draft.Enjoy the ensuing working group discussion...No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft exists; the current
document is meant to provide a description of common activities for this, but again
note that it is not normative.There are some basic considerations when deciding to adopt a draft:Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a
document?Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group?Is the purpose of the draft sufficiently clear?What are the process or technical objections to adoption of the
draft?If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the charter feasible
and warranted?Does the draft carry known intellectual property rights issues?Is there strong working group support for working on the draft?There are, however, some criteria that do not need to be met:Working group agreement to adopt is not
required to be unanimous.The writing quality is not required to be
ready-for-publication, although writing quality can be a problem and does
need explicit attention; although not mandatory, it is good practice to
check whether a new working group draft passes .The document is not required to
already contain a complete and/or sufficient solution, although of course
this can be helpful.The position of the working group chairs,
concerning the draft, has no special authority.Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is
owned by the working group and can be changed however the working group
decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working group charter.
Absent explicit agreement, adopting a document does not automatically mean that
the working group has agreed to all of its content. So a working group (or its
charter) might explicitly dictate the basis for retaining, removing or
modifying some or all of a draft's content, technical details, or the like.
However in the absence of such constraints, it is worth having the adoption
process include a sub-process of gathering working group concerns about the
existing draft and flagging them explicitly.Document authors/editors are chosen by the working group chairs. Authors are described
in Section 6.3 of . The distinction between an 'author' and an 'editor' is, at
best, subjective. A simplistic rule of thumb is that editors tend to do the
mechanics of incorporating working group detail, whereas authors tend to create
the detail, subject to working group approval. That is, one role is more active
with the content and the other is more passive. It is a responsibility of the
working group chairs to ensure that document authors make modifications in accord
with working group rough consensus. Authors who demonstrate sustained
misunderstanding of their authority are subject to replacement...For existing documents that are being adopted by a working group, there is a special
challenge in the selection of document editors: The document has already had editors. So
the question is whether the same people are appropriate for continuing the task?
Sometimes the answer is yes, but this is not automatic. The process within an IETF
working group can be quite different from the process that created previous versions.
This well might make it appropriate to select one or more new editors, either as
additions to the editor team or as primary pen-holders (effectively re-classifying the
previous team as co-authors). If the original editors are to continue in their role, the chairs might want to ensure
that the editors understand IETF working group process; it is likely to be quite
different from the process that developed earlier versions of the document. If
additional or new editors are assigned, the transition can be discussed, including its
reasons; this is best done as soon as possible.Working group charters often specify an initial set of existing documents to use.
Working group charters sometimes specify an initial set of existing documents to use as
a basis of the working group's work. That 'basis' can vary considerably, from simple
input to working group discussion, all the way to an advanced draft adopted by the
working group and subject only to minimal changes. The role of a document should be
explicitly stated in the charter.Absent charter restrictions, a working group is free to create new documents. It is not
required that all drafts start outside the working group. Of course, the criteria for
brand new documents are likely to be the same as for those imported into the working
group with the additional and obvious requirement that the working group chairs will
need to appoint authors/editors before any work can progress. Note that from time to
time a working group will form a design team to produce the first version of a working
group draft. Design teams are discussed in Section 6.5 of .Work that is brought to the IETF has different levels of completeness and maturity, and
different timings for having achieved those levels. When the IETF charters a group and
includes existing material, the charter can cast the role of that material in very
different ways: It can treat it as no more than a set of ideas, to be used or ignored;It can treat it as a basic design, with all of the actual details still
fluid;It can treat it as a rough draft, subject to extensive revision;It can treat it as a solid specification that merely needs review,
refinement and maybe enhancement;It can treat it as a deployed technology that is best served by trying to
protect its installed base, but with some tolerance for changes that affect
interoperability;It can treat it as a deployed technology for which protecting the installed
base is essential, including retention of core interoperability.These suggest a wide range of possible constraints on working group effort.Equally, those bringing technology to the IETF do so at different points in the maturity
of their work. Any of the above might make sense, depending upon that maturity, the
extent of deployment, and the timing of the investment made by the installed base.When technology is brand new, with at most some prototypes done as proofs of concept,
then significant changes to the spec won't necessarily add much to the development and
deployment costs. On the other extreme, a mature, deployed market can be almost cavalier
about the freedom of a working group charter, because its base of experience is
sufficient to hold sway over a working group that gets silly: that is, the installed
base is sufficiently well-established and unified in what it will accept, so that it's
leverage is clear. However, immediately after the development investment is made -- and especially when
there has been considerable initial deployment, but still room for quite a bit more --
the installed and potential base will not take kindly to disruptive standards work that
undermines their recent investment; worse, such work can seriously damage further
adoption.In reflecting upon the basis for adopting an existing draft, it is important to consider
the document's place in its lifecycle and the needs of any installed base when deciding
on the constraints to impose on document development.Sometimes, a working group facilitates a draft, but does not own it or formally adopt
it. These are "individual" drafts .As noted in and reinforced in , the convention for identifying an I-D formally under the ownership of a working
group is by following the naming convention: By contrast, documents that are still under the control of their authors
are known as "individual" I-Ds. When these documents are intended for consideration
by a specific working group, the convention is that the document uses the naming
convention as follows where the second element is the last name of one of the
principal authors. , with a common filename convention of the working group name following the
personal name: Typically such documents are subject to normal working group process. However
ownership stays with the original author and the document is not formally working
group output. In these situations, when publication is requested, it might be the
case that the working group has consensus that the document will be published as an
RFC, but does not have agreement about the text in the document.Of course, the author and the working group might decide to change the document's
status, such as making it a formal working group draft, or publish it along a
different RFC stream or submission path.This is a rare situation and working group chairs can be assured that the Area
Directors will want to understand why the document could not be adopted and owned by
the working group.Engineering for interesting topics often produces competing, interesting proposals.
The reasons can be technical aesthetics, engineering tradeoffs, architectural
differences, company economics and the like. Although it is far more comfortable to
entertain only one proposal, a working group is free to pursue more than one. Often
this is necessary until a clear preference develops. Sometimes, multiple versions are
formally published, absent consensus among the alternatives.It is appealing to ask authors of competing proposals to find a way to merge their
work. Where it makes sense to do this, it can produce a single, strong specification.
On the other hand, some differences cannot be resolved and attempting a merge can
produce a weaker result, as discussed in xref target="Heli-Sub" />. Some would argue
that this is the more common outcome. At the least, detailed discussions to merge are
better held in private than amidst the dynamics of an open working group mailing
list. The working group has ultimate authority to approve any decisions, but it is
not required that it be involved in all the discussions.Isn't there an RFC somewhere about coin-tossing to resolve
"draws"? (ed.)Various management efforts can facilitate the handling of competing proposals. Some
examples include: Develop a requirements document that is independent of specific
proposals; this can highlight features that are deemed essential, from
those that are of secondary importance, and facilitate a discussion about
features without reference to specific proposals.Develop a comparison table of the proposals; this can aid understanding
of their differences.Discuss the relative importance and effects of having one proposal,
versus multiple; this can focus people's efforts at compromise and
encourage a willingness to choose a single proposal.The problem of competing drafts can be particularly painful when it arises in either
of two circumstances: If a second proposal appears as a new draft, just as the chairs were
ready to poll the working group on adoption of the draft containing the
first proposal, then the authors of the first proposal could feel
affronted. It does not follow that the second draft was written to be
difficult or derail the first: it might even include better ideas. So it
is best not to disregard it. However, automatically asking the authors to
merge their work will not necessarily produce a more solid solution and
will not guarantee faster progress. This situation will be a judgement
call in each case, and it might help to ask the working group for their
opinion: shall the working group adopt one document as a starting point
and fold in the ideas from the second under the control of consensus, or
shall the working group wait until the authors of both documents have
reached agreement? If the working group has already adopted an I-D on a specific topic, the
posting of a new individual I-D on the same topic could be seen as an
attack on the working group processes or decisions. However, posting an
I-D is often a good way to put new ideas into concrete form and into the
public domain for consideration and discussion. The working group chairs
will want to encourage the working group to consider the new proposal.
Shall it be adopted and entirely replace the current working group draft?
Shall the new ideas be incorporated into the work of the working group
through the normal editorial process? Shall the working group adopt a
second competing solution? Or shall the new draft be rejected and not
adopted by the working group?Beyond the credibility of the IETF, this document raises no security concerns.This draft was developed from an IETF tutorial given by A. Farrel. L. Anderson
contributed useful comments.What is a Working Group ID (and when to adopt one)Huaweiadrian.farrel@huawei.comIETF Working Group Guidelines and ProceduresHarvard University1350 Mass Ave.CambridgeMA+1 617 495 3864sob@harvard.edu
General
Internet Engineering Task Force The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has responsibility for developing
and reviewing specifications intended as Internet Standards. IETF activities
are organized into working groups (WGs). This document describes the guidelines
and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. It also
describes the formal relationship between IETF participants WG and the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of IETF participants,
including WG Chairs, WG participants, and IETF Area Directors. The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
ForceThis 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. This memo provides information for the Internet community.Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure
RulesThe disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in documents
produced within the IETF stream is essential to the accurate development of
community consensus. However, this process is not always followed by IETF
participants. Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR
disclosure rules can delay or even derail completion of IETF specifications.
This document describes some strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR
disclosure rules. These strategies are primarily intended for use by area
directors, working group chairs, and working group secretaries. This document
is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for
informational purposes.Checklist for Internet-Drafts (IDs) submitted for RFC publicationIDNITS ToolIETFGuidelines to Authors of Internet-DraftsVigil SecurityIETF Internet-Draft Initial Version Approval TrackerIESGOn Helicopters and SubmarinesInvisible WorldsOn Consensus and Humming in the IETFGuidance on Area Director Sponsoring of DocumentsThis document was based on a presentation made at an IETF Working Group Chairs lunch.
)