rfc1396.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

Network Working Group                                         S. Crocker
Request for Comments: 1396             Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
                                                            January 1993


           The Process for Organization of Internet Standards
                         Working Group (POISED)
                          Steve Crocker, Chair

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is
   unlimited.

Abstract

   This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG),
   starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to the
   end of 1992.  Necessarily, this synopsis represents my own
   perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period.  Quite a few
   people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and specific
   events.  My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view as
   possible.

Background and Formation of POISED Working Group

   The POISED WG resulted from two sequences of activity, both
   intimately related to the growth of the Internet.  During 1991, there
   was great concern that the IP address space was being depleted and
   that the routing tables were growing too large.  Some change in the
   IP addressing and routing mechanisms seemed inevitable, and it became
   urgent to explore and choose what those changes should be.  The ROAD
   Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes.
   The ROAD group returned with a specific recommendation for the short
   term, but did not reach a conclusion on a long term plan.

   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then formulated a plan
   of action for further exploration of the issues and forwarded these
   recommendations to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  In June
   1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met and
   considered the IESG's recommendations.  After considering the IESG's
   recommendations, the IAB felt that additional ideas were also
   important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP
   protocol.  The IAB communicated its concerns, and there was immediate
   controversy along two dimensions.  One dimension was technical: What
   is the best course for evolving the IP protocol?  How important or
   useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack?  The other dimension



Crocker                                                         [Page 1]

RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993


   was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community?
   Who chooses who makes these decisions?

   As often happens during periods of conflict, communication suffered
   among the several parties.  The June communication from the IAB was
   understood by many an IAB decision or, equivalently, a sense of the
   decisions the IAB would make in the future.  In contrast, many if not
   all on the IAB felt that they were trying to open up the discussion
   and their memos were intended as advice and not decisions.  From my
   perspective, this form of miscommunication was partly due to the
   extended size of the Internet technical community.  When the
   community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day
   to day workings of the technical groups.  With the creation of the
   IESG and area directorates, there are now two or three layers between
   a working group and the IAB.

   These matters came to a head during the Internet Engineering Task
   Force (IETF) meeting in July in Cambridge, MA.  It was made clear
   that the consideration of changes to the IP protocol remained open.
   Work on that topic has proceeded and is reported in the appropriate
   forums.  However, it became clear that it was necessary to examine
   the decision process and the procedures for populating the IESG and
   IAB.  With respect to the procedures for selecting IAB and IESG
   members, the procedures that were in place derived from the creation
   of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB.
   These procedures had been developed during the early part of 1992 and
   had been adopted by the ISOC during its meeting in Kobe in June.
   Hence, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework for supporting
   the Internet community, the community was questioning its structure
   and processes.

   Following the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president,
   called for the formation of working group to examine the processes
   and particularly the selection process (Attachment 1).  During
   August, the working group was formed, I was asked to chair it, and a
   charter for the WG was formulated (Attachment 2).  (The acronym is
   due to Erik Huizer and originally stood for The Process for
   Organization of Internet Standards and Development.  It was shortened
   to fit into the space available on paper and in the IETF
   Secretariat's database.)

Deliberations: August through mid-November

   The formation of the POISED WG provided a forum for discussion of
   process issues.  An estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks all
   over the world.  Much of this discussion was fragmented or focused on
   narrow issues.  The salient point that emerged was the need for a
   well defined process for selecting leaders with explicit community



Crocker                                                         [Page 2]

RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993


   representation in the selection process.  There was also substantial
   discussion of the role of the IAB -- to what extent should it make
   decisions and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? --
   and the relationship between the IAB and IESG.

   After several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and I attempted to
   capture the main elements of the discussion by presenting a specific
   proposal for the reorganization of the entire structure.  The main
   elements of the proposal were:

      o Retention of the WG and area structure now in place within the
        IETF.

      o Replacement of the IAB and IESG by two boards, one devoted to
        technical management and one devoted to oversight of the
        process.

      o Well defined terms for members of both boards.

      o Selection by committees with input from the community.

   This proposal was technically radical in the sense that it proposed
   new structures to replace existing structures instead of proposing
   changes within the existing system.  The proposal focused all further
   discussion and set the stage for the fall IETF in mid-November in
   Washington D.C.

November IETF meeting

   By virtue of the intensity of interest throughout the community, the
   POISED WG was one of the focal points of the IETF meeting.  The
   schedule included a plenary session Tuesday morning to present the
   current state of the POISED WG discussions, a formal POISED WG
   session Tuesday afternoon and an open IESG meeting Thursday evening
   devoted to the POISED issues.  The formal schedule was only the tip
   of the iceberg; numerous meetings took place over breakfast, lunch
   and dinner, in the halls and off in the corners.  The more active
   participants probably had a dozen or more separate meetings on this
   over the three most active days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

   Amidst all this frenetic activity, remarkable progress occurred at
   two key points.  At the Tuesday afternoon POISED WG meeting, Lyman
   Chapin, IAB chair, Phill Gross, IETF chair and IAB member, and other
   IAB members proposed changes within the existing IAB/IESG structure
   which converged with the process management elements of the Malamud-
   Crocker proposal.  The key point was that all processing of standards
   actions, including the final decision to advance a specification
   along the standards track, would be made by the IESG.  This change in



Crocker                                                         [Page 3]

RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993


   the process shortens the decision cycle and brings it a step closer
   to the working group.   Convergence on this key point obviated a
   radical proposal and signaled the building of a consensus on how the
   standards process should evolve.  Over the next two days attention
   then turned to the selection process.

   As indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community that
   the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of the
   community.  A natural mechanism for doing this is through formal
   voting.  However, a formal voting process requires formal delineation
   of who's enfranchised.  One of the strengths of the IETF is there
   isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition of
   decision through  votes.  Decisions are generally reached by
   consensus with mediation by leaders when necessary.

   Various formulas were considered, and the one that emerged was that
   IAB and IESG members would be selected by a nomination and recruiting
   committee.  The committee is to consist of seven members from the
   community, with non-voting representatives from the IAB and IESG and
   a non-voting chair provided by the ISOC.  The seven members are to be
   volunteers, with selection by lot if there are more than seven
   volunteers.  The only requirement for volunteers is they must have
   attended two IETF meetings.  This requirement is designed to ensure
   the nomination committee has some familiarity with the Internet
   community and the standards process.

   IAB and IESG members are to serve two years.  Half of each body is to
   have terms starting in odd years, and half is to have terms starting
   in even years.  Selections to the IESG have to be ratified by the
   IAB, and selections to the IAB had to be ratified by the ISOC.  In
   the event that the nomination committee is unable to reach a
   consensus on a single candidate for each position, it may forward
   multiple nominations to the ratifying body, and the ratifying body
   will select the candidate.

   In addition to this selection process, a recall mechanism was
   outlined using a similar scheme.  The ISOC is to supply an ombudsman
   who will field complaints after all oversight processes have been
   exhausted.  If the ombudsman is unable to resolve a complaint after a
   cooling off period, a recall committee, selected at random among
   volunteering community members, will consider the matter.  A two
   thirds vote by the committee is necessary to remove someone.

   This proposal was formulated and circulated during Wednesday and
   Thursday and presented at the IESG open plenary.  In contrast to the
   extraordinarily contentious open IESG meeting in Cambridge, this
   meeting was characterized by a strenuous effort by numerous people,
   representing diverse points of view, to reach consensus on this



Crocker                                                         [Page 4]

RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993


   proposal, and the meeting ended with a distinct decision to proceed
   on this basis.  Given the strong consensus that emerged at that
   meeting, the group decided to implement the selection process by the
   next IETF meeting, with the new IESG and IAB members to begin their
   terms at the termination of the IETF meeting in March.

   On Friday, the IAB and IESG met jointly to determine what to do next.
   Both groups agreed to implement the change in processing standards
   actions quickly and cooperatively and to identify the positions which
   are open for selection.  Within a couple of weeks, the IAB finished
   processing the standards actions in its queue, and IESG began to
   handle standards actions on its own.

December ISOC meeting

   The Internet Society Trustees met December 10 and 11 at CNRI in
   Reston, VA.  The process and organization of the IAB and IETF was one
   of their major concerns.  A session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST,
   December 10, was broadcast via the Internet.  It was not clear how
   many people listened, but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, was spliced
   in separately from Australia.

   At this session, I presented the POISED WG results deliberations and
   asked on behalf of the IETF that the Trustees approve the selection
   process described above.  For the long run, a new charter is needed.
   Given the very compressed schedule for these activities, there has
   not been time to draft and refine a new charter, so the Trustees were
   asked to approve the general direction of the reorganization of the
   IAB and IETF and give temporary approval to the selection process in
   order to permit the first round of selections to proceed.

   The Trustees expressed strong approval for the work of the POISED WG
   and general approval for the direction of the effort.  One area of
   concern for the Trustees is the legal liability of the Internet
   Society regarding decisions the IESG might make in the future.  The
   Trustees made it quite clear that they are not inclined to
   micromanage the IETF process, but they do feel compelled to
   understand the legal issues and help construct a charter which is
   consistent with their responsibilities as Trustees.

   The session adjourned with agreement to proceed on the current course
   and for the IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees to work together to draft the
   appropriate charter.








Crocker                                                         [Page 5]