2.2.1 Process for Organization of Internet StandardS ONg (poisson)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 39th IETF Meeting in Munich, Bavaria, Germany. It may now be out-of-date.


Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@sec.nl>

General Area Director(s):

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>

General Area Advisor:

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: poised@tis.com
To Subscribe: poised-request@tis.com
Archive: ftp://ftp.tis.com/pub/lists/poised/poised.yymm

Description of Working Group:

The POISED working group in 1993-1994 established the basis of the IETF process in its current form. Poised95 established a base set of documents to describe the essentials of the IETF process. POISSON will concern itself with extending the set of RFC documents that describe the IETF process.

The name POISSON:

The tricky part of describing the IETF process, certainly in the fast changing world of the Internet, is that when you describe the process in too much detail, the IETF loses its flexibility, when you describe to little it becomes unmanageable. This is therefore a slippery subject, hence the name POISSON, which is French for fish. The French word also serves to indicate the international aspect of the WG.

Furthermore the IETF operates by consensus, which sometimes seems to have a POISSON distribution.

The POISSON WG will work on the following items:

WG and Area procedures; This is to become a BCP document that describes the procedures that the IETF has for WG formation and operation, and for Area Directors. This is an essential formalization and update of RFC1603. The document should additionally include issues like:

· WG editor definition

· WG chair (de)selection

· WG ethics

Proposed editors: Scott Bradner and Erik Huizer

· Standards process; The standards process document as produced by Poised95 is not yet complete. The document needs to be updated with specific regard to the standards document structure categorization and publication.

Proposed editor: Scott Bradner

· Nomcom procedures; The Nomcom procedures document as produced by Poised95 may need updating as a result of nomcom experience early 1997. If this is the case, the POISSON WG will take it upon itself to update the document. If not the POISSON WG will not work on this.

Proposed editor: Jim Galvin

· Code of conduct; based on the Internet-draft: draft-odell-code-of-conduct-00.txt the POISSON WG will produce a code of conduct for the IETF.

Proposed editor: Mike O'Dell

Furthermore, the POISSON WG will review documents that are related to the IETF standards process (but that will not be produced by the POISSON WG itself) when available. Such documents may include:

· IETF Charter; This needs to be written by the IETF chair. It is essentially a short mission statement like document that contains references to other Poised documents for further details.

· IESG Charter; This document will be written by the IESG.

· IAB Charter; The IAB needs to revise its charter (RFC1601).

· ISOC Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation; These need to be published as RFC(s).

· The IRTF charter.

POISSON will meet in San Jose and Memphis to try and gauge a rough consensus on these issues and develop guidelines and drafts for the appropriate documents.

Goals and Milestones:

Oct 96


Submit draft-odell-code-of-conduct-01.txt to IESG for publication as an RFC.

Oct 96


Submit Internet-Draft revising RFC1603

Oct 96


Submit Internet-Draft with revisions to standards process

Oct 96


Submit Internet-Draft of IETF Charter

Dec 96


Submit revised Internet-Draft of WG Guidelines

Dec 96


meet in San Jose

Dec 96


Submit revised Internet-Draft of standards process

Mar 97


Submit Internet-Draft revision of Nomcom procedures

Mar 97


Submit code-of-conduct to IESG for publication as an RFC

Apr 97


Meet in Memphis

May 97


Submit Internet-Drafts on WG Guidelines, Standards Process, and NOMCOMM to IESG for publication as BCPs


No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

Minutes of the POISSON Working Group

Chair: Erik Huizer

Reported by: Geoff Huston

I. IETF Nominations Committee Procedures

Jim Galvin reported on the status of revision of the IETF Nominations Committee Procedures, noting that the outstanding item of discussion was the qualification condition for IETF members of the committee. Steve Coya will provide further numbers to the WG mailing list relating to the number of attendees who had attended two of the prior three IETF meetings for previous years at the NomCom cut-off date.

The WG discussed Bill Simpson's proposals relating to alternate options for qualification of IETF volunteers. The additional process overhead and subjective nature of the interpretation of "WG involvement" was noted in discussion and no clear consensus for immediate change of the current attendance at two of the last three IETF meetings was evident.

Following WG review of the attendance numbers, the call will be made to complete the process of revision by the Poised WG. The draft will be forwarded to the ISOC Secretary and the IESG on 1 September.

II. RFC Series Naming

The WG considered the recent proposals to alter the document naming system. The WG considered a proposal by Brian Carpenter to insert a three-letter document classification code into the document title, retaining both 'RFC' and the current RFC numbering (such as "RFC-ISD-nnnn" for Internet Standards Documents). The WG did not indicate consensus for this proposed change; Erik Huizer will document the issues involved with the use of a single naming sequence for all IETF documents for future reference.

III. RFC1603bis

The WG considered progress on RFC1603bis. A number of editorial changes were seen as necessary to the draft, including removal of reference to "IESG Secretary" and the section describing A-D approval of various individuals involved within each WG including the A-D. The WG noted that the current draft describes only two possible outcomes when a WG wishes to change its charter: acceptance or folding of the WG. The inclusion of a third potential outcome - that of no change to the existing charter was felt to be necessary. These revisions will be forwarded to Scott Bradner.


The WG noted the imminent completion of most of its charter, but did also note that the WG was chartered to review some additional documents that have not been drafted. The WG determined to go into a dormant state until these documents have been submitted for review.


None Received

Attendees List

go to list

Previous PageNext Page