The IETF Process: an Informal Guide

Administrivia

Date: 2008-04-14

Approved by: IESG

Document editor: Brian Carpenter

Discussion forum: ietf@ietf.org

Abstract

This document is an informal guide to various IETF process documents, intended mainly to assist IETF participants in navigating the labyrinth.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  The guide
    2.1.  General description of workflow in the IETF
    2.2.  Definition of standards track and related document types
    2.3.  Intellectual Property
    2.4.  Review and approval process
    2.5.  Bodies involved in the process
    2.6.  Conduct of participants
    2.7.  Publication process
    2.8.  Parameter registration process
    2.9.  Administration
    2.10.  Modifying the process
3.  Acknowledgements
4.  Change log
5.  References
    5.1.  Normative References (Rules)
    5.2.  Informative References

1.  Introduction

BCP 9 [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.) has been the basis for the IETF standards process for many years. However, many other process documents exist, some of which are partial updates to BCP 9. This situation is confusing and would ideally be resolved by a clear set of interlocking documents. The present document suggests a structured way of looking at the existing documents.

It is difficult to linearise a complicated and interlocked process. This document presents a guide in one particular order, but that is not intended to imply priority or importance, and it cannot capture all interactions between components.

Formally, IETF processes are described in Best Current Practices (BCPs) published as RFCs. Most of the cited RFCs are BCPs. RFC numbers have been used rather than BCP numbers, for convenient lookup. To avoid any accidental ambiguity, this guide does not attempt to paraphrase or summarize their contents; the reader should consult the original RFCs.

2.  The guide

2.1.  General description of workflow in the IETF

Such a document does not exist, although the Tao [RFC4677] (Hoffman, P. and S. Harris, “The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force,” September 2006.) offers most of it informally: How ideas for new work enter the IETF, reach a BOF (also see [I‑D.narten‑successful‑bof] (Narten, T., “Considerations for Having a Successful BOF,” October 2007.)), enter IAB or IRTF discussion, and possibly become material for a new or existing WG. How WGs are chartered - the Area Director's role. How specific proposals become drafts and flow through the development, review and approval process.

2.2.  Definition of standards track and related document types

This material is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.). Additional requirements for routing protocols were previously defined in [RFC1264] (Hinden, R., “Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria,” October 1991.), but this is now obsolete [RFC4794] (Fenner, B., “RFC 1264 Is Obsolete,” December 2006.). It should be noted that practice and interpretation have grown around the documented rules; the Tao [RFC4677] (Hoffman, P. and S. Harris, “The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force,” September 2006.) is helpful in this respect.

• Technical Specifications
  This material is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.), covering standards track, BCP and Experimental documents. The STD (standard) designation is documented in [RFC1311] (Postel, J., “Introduction to the STD Notes,” March 1992.). Variance procedures for down-level normative references are in [RFC3967] (Bush, R. and T. Narten, “Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level,” December 2004.) and [RFC4897] (Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, “Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents,” June 2007.). A specific process for advancing MIB documents is in [RFC2438] (O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner, “Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track,” October 1998.).
• Informational Material
  This material is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.), covering Informational and Historic documents. A distinction between obsolete and deprecated documents is not currently made in the IETF.

2.3.  Intellectual Property

• Rights in Contributions [RFC3978] (Bradner, S., “IETF Rights in Contributions,” March 2005.), [RFC4748] (Bradner, S., “RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust,” October 2006.). For MIBs, also see [RFC4181] (Heard, C., “Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents,” September 2005.), [RFC4841] (Heard, C., “RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust,” March 2007.).
• Rights in Technology [RFC3979] (Bradner, S., “Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology,” March 2005.), [RFC4879] (Narten, T., “Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure Procedure in RFC 3979,” April 2007.) (Guidelines, [RFC3669] (Brim, S., “Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues,” February 2004.))
• Trademarks [RFC3978] (Bradner, S., “IETF Rights in Contributions,” March 2005.)
• IETF Trust [RFC4371] (Carpenter, B. and L. Lynch, “BCP 101 Update for IPR Trust,” January 2006.)

2.4.  Review and approval process

The formal process is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.).

• Document shepherding [RFC4858] (Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin, “Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication,” May 2007.).
• Criteria for review
  Various review teams exist in different IETF Areas, with their own technical criteria. For the General Area, see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html
• Criteria for approval
  Material on current IESG practice can be found in http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
• Appeal process
  This material is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.).

2.5.  Bodies involved in the process

Bodies involved [RFC2028] (Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, “The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process,” October 1996.); Defining the IETF [RFC3233] (Hoffman, P. and S. Bradner, “Defining the IETF,” February 2002.); Mission Statement [RFC3935] (Alvestrand, H., “A Mission Statement for the IETF,” October 2004.).

• WG procedures [RFC2418] (Bradner, S., “IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,” September 1998.), [RFC4858] (Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin, “Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication,” May 2007.)
• IESG [RFC3710] (Alvestrand, H., “An IESG charter,” February 2004.)
• IAB [RFC2850] (Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, “Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB),” May 2000.)
• Liaison management [RFC4052] (Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships,” April 2005.), [RFC4053] (Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, “Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF,” April 2005.), (guidance in [RFC4691] (Andersson, L., “Guidelines for Acting as an IETF Liaison to Another Organization,” October 2006.))
• Nomcom [RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.), [RFC5078] (Dawkins, S., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Revision of the Nominating and Recall Committees Timeline,” October 2007.)
• Relationship to ISOC [RFC2031] (Huizer, E., “IETF-ISOC relationship,” October 1996.), [RFC3677] (Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures,” December 2003.)

2.6.  Conduct of participants

See [RFC3005] (Harris, S., “IETF Discussion List Charter,” November 2000.), [RFC3184] (Harris, S., “IETF Guidelines for Conduct,” October 2001.), [RFC3683] (Rose, M., “A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF mailing lists,” February 2004.), [RFC3934] (Wasserman, M., “Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists,” October 2004.), [RFC4633] (Hartman, S., “Experiment in Long-Term Suspensions From Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mailing Lists,” August 2006.); also discussed in [RFC2418] (Bradner, S., “IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,” September 1998.) and in the Tao[RFC4677] (Hoffman, P. and S. Harris, “The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force,” September 2006.).

• Appeal process
  This material is currently embedded in [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.).

2.7.  Publication process

• The RFC Series and RFC Editor[RFC4844] (Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” July 2007.)
• Process for Publication of IAB RFCs[RFC4845] (Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, “Process for Publication of IAB RFCs,” July 2007.)
• Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846] (Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, “Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,” July 2007.), [RFC3932] (Alvestrand, H., “The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures,” October 2004.).
• Format and mechanics for drafts
  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html
• Format and mechanics for archival publications
  [RFC2223] (Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “Instructions to RFC Authors,” October 1997.) is the published version today. The RFC Editor currently refers to [I‑D.rfc‑editor‑rfc2223bis] (Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, “Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors,” July 2004.). Those writing standards will find the following especially useful: [RFC2360] (Scott, G., “Guide for Internet Standards Writers,” June 1998.), [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” October 1998.) (to be replaced by [I‑D.narten‑iana‑considerations‑rfc2434bis] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” March 2008.)), [RFC3552] (Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, “Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations,” July 2003.).
• Requirements for submission and publication services [RFC4228] (Rousskov, A., “Requirements for an IETF Draft Submission Toolset,” December 2005.), [RFC4714] (Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, “Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service,” October 2006.).

2.8.  Parameter registration process

• Requirements [RFC2860] (Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority,” June 2000.)
• Guidelines [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” October 1998.) (to be replaced by [I‑D.narten‑iana‑considerations‑rfc2434bis] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” March 2008.))
• Format and mechanics
  Case by case at IANA web site.
  
  

2.9.  Administration

See [RFC4071] (Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, “Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA),” April 2005.), [RFC4371] (Carpenter, B. and L. Lynch, “BCP 101 Update for IPR Trust,” January 2006.), [RFC4333] (Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, “The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process,” December 2005.).

2.10.  Modifying the process

[RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.) defines how process BCPs are discussed and approved. A general description of how the IETF modifies its own processes does not exist, but probably should. An experimental procedure is described in [RFC3933] (Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, “A Model for IETF Process Experiments,” November 2004.) (also see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/experiments.html).

3.  Acknowledgements

Useful comments on this document were made by: Harald Alvestrand, Scott Bradner, Spencer Dawkins, Leslie Daigle, John Klensin, Paul Hoffman, and others.

This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629] (Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” June 1999.).

4.  Change log

Reformatted as an ad hoc web page at conclusion of ION experiment, cited RFC 4228, 4844-46, 5078, 2008-04-14.

DRAFT ion-procdocs 2007-06-27: cited RFC 4897, 4879, 4181, 4841, 4858.

DRAFT ion-procdocs 2007-02-14: public comments incorporated

DRAFT ion-procdocs 2007-01-29: converted to ION format

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-05: Earlier drafts of this document included references to drafts proposing changes to the standards process. These have been removed to make this document a more stable reference. It has been renamed from "roadmap" to "guide." Some editorial rearrangements have been made. 2006-08-02

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-04: minor additions, tuned Abstract and Introduction, 2006-02-20

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-03: minor additions, 2005-12-20

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-02: minor additions, 2005-10-11

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-01: minor additions, 2005-09-20

draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-00: original version, 2005-08-22

5.  References

5.1. Normative References (Rules)

5.2. Informative References