1 / 17

PUFI BOF (Procedures Update for IETF)

PUFI BOF (Procedures Update for IETF). Chair: Pete Resnick Franklin 1/2 Audio channel 1. Agenda. Documents draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes draft-ietf-newtrk-docid draft-klensin-stds-review-panel draft-otis-newtrk-rfc-set draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas

aimee
Télécharger la présentation

PUFI BOF (Procedures Update for IETF)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PUFI BOF(Procedures Update for IETF) Chair: Pete Resnick Franklin 1/2 Audio channel 1

  2. Agenda • Documents • draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes • draft-ietf-newtrk-docid • draft-klensin-stds-review-panel • draft-otis-newtrk-rfc-set • draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk • draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas • draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea • draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs • draft-klensin-nomcom-term • draft-ietf-newtrk-promotion • draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel • draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage • draft-klensin-recall-rev • draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd • draft-klensin-overload • draft-huston-ietf-pact

  3. Agenda • Document handling changes • Other changes • IESG/WG procedural changes • Nomcom/recall changes Ordered by simplicity of change as determined by Pete Brian’s doc appears first because some of the changes are simple

  4. Ground rules • Try to gauge consensus on two metrics • “Pain” incurred by making the change • “Motivation” to change the current state These are independent variables • IESG/IAB are equal participants in this discussion. However… • Russ may call consensus. However… • If there is consensus that Russ/IESG doesn’t get to call consensus…

  5. Document Handling (1) • Abolish "STD 1" RFCs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]. • Remove reference to RFC 1 [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Call out normative dependency rules. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Specify seperating normative and informative references, and pointing out down-reference procedures [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  6. Document Handling (2) • Update the reference to the RFC formatting rules [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Add reference to RFC Editor errata [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Document the I-D archive. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Don't expire drafts under any kind of IESG consideration. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  7. Document Handling (3) • Call out that a Technical Specification might be an API, a data format, or a registry. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Remove explicit separation of Techical Specification and Applicability Statement [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Apply "requirements levels" to all specs and BCPs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Allow a document to contain it's own process variance statement [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  8. Document Handling (4) • Point out that Informational and Experimental RFCs are sometimes protocols and often get reviewed by the IESG [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Document separation between individual submissions and RFC Editor independent submissions, IAB, and IRTF documents. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Remove idea of a requirements document as conformance specification. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Clarify that more recent standards obsolete older ones regardless of their respective stages on the standards track [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  9. Document Handling (5) • Remove implementation warnings about PS documents [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • IESG assigns Historic status [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Remove IESG "stuck at level" document review requirement and make it the community's responsibility to request such review [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Require AD sponsorship of non-WG Informational or Experimental except for RFC Editor submissions [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  10. Document Handling (6) • Loosen the DS advancement rules to give discretion to IESG [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Fast-track some old but widely deployed documents to full standard [draft-ietf-newtrk-promotion] • Say that BCPs must be IETF reviewed and IESG approved [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Say that advancing through the standards track requires either a WG or an AD sponsorship [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  11. Document Handling (7) • Rename Proposed Standard as "Preliminary Standard" [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Rename Draft Standard as "Deployable Standard" [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Standards-track identifiers (instead of only for full standard) [draft-ietf-newtrk-docid, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Drop Draft Standard level [draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage]

  12. Document Handling (8) • RFC Sets, i.e., updateable documents that point to a set of RFCs. [draft-otis-newtrk-rfc-set] • Add a "Working Group Snapshot" label to drafts to identify WG milestones [draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs] • Create an Internet Standards Documentation series [draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd] • Switch standards track to "Stable Snapshot", "Proposed Standard", "Internet Standard" [draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk]

  13. Other changes • Remove things now in by RFC 4844 and 4846 [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Remove the reference to the ISOC newsletter [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Strike discussion of what the Internet is in 2026 [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Clarify interaction between IETF and other SDOs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]

  14. IESG/WG Procedural Changes (1) • Allow spam to be deleted from WG archives [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Allow WGs to have the secretariat keep the e-mail archive [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Allow any decsion by IESG, chairs, or other appointed roles, to be appealable [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] • Mandatory independent technical review before IESG review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • WG chairs and document editors participate in IESG deliberation [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • AD designated reviewer which can substitute for AD review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas]

  15. IESG/WG Procedural Changes (2) • Cross area review teams review documents before IESG (and have force of IESG decisions) [draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea] • Require 3 ADs to agree to return a document to WG [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • Require 2/3 of ADs to re-return a document after WG review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • Assign IAB task of technical review of documents (instead of IESG) [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • Separate Internet Standards Review Panel (ISRP) from the IESG [draft-klensin-stds-review-panel] • Increase the size of the IESG and divide/disperse tasks of document review and WG management [draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel]

  16. IESG/WG Procedural Changes (3) • Restructure IETF into Ops, Sec, and Gen, with IAB review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] • Limit number of WGs per area [draft-klensin-overload] • More explict analysis required of WG charters [draft-huston-ietf-pact] • Short timeouts are put in place for IESG document discussions [draft-huston-ietf-pact] • The IESG would do (modified) proportional voting on all documents [draft-huston-ietf-pact] • WG drafts have time limits for publication [draft-huston-ietf-pact]

  17. Nomcom/Recall Changes • Two-phase nomcom; first decide on which incumbents return, then choose from new folks [draft-klensin-nomcom-term] • Allow IAB and IESG members to be recall petitioners [draft-klensin-recall-rev]

More Related