Preliminary Description/Agenda Procedures Update for IETF (PUFI) BOF Wednedsay, March 12, 2008, 1300-1500, Franklin 1/2 BOF Chair: Pete Resnick Respponsible AD: Russ Housley Topic: The recent IETF Last Call for draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes has shown that many people active in the IETF community are wary of changing the IETF procedures without a very thorough discussion. Yet, the POISED WG and the NEWTRK WG efforts showed that it is indeed difficult to craft new procedures and then obtain IETF consensus for them. While there does not appear to be consensus to adopt all of the changes in draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes, there does appear to be support for some of the changes. In the meanwhile, other historical proposals were also brought up. The objective of this BOF is to determine which of the proposed changes have broad community support. The intent is to generate a document that can be easily approved as an update to RFC 2026 that contains only the proposed changes with broad community support. This BOF is not intended to form an IETF WG. Documents: Discussion will be around topics in the following list of documents. Many of these documents are expired Internet Drafts which can still be found on . 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 The following is a collected list of topics, in no particular order, from those documents. The issues list will be sorted prior to the meeting based on the size of the change suggested (to be determined by an entirely ad-hoc subjective evaluation of the chair). Discussion will try to achieve consensus on which problems may be worked on based on two metrics: Overall "pain" incurred by attempting to make the change, and overall "pain" endured due to the current procedure. Document handling changes: - RFC Sets, i.e., updateable documents that point to a set of RFCs. [draft-otis-newtrk-rfc-set] - Standards-track identifiers (instead of only for full standard) [draft-ietf-newtrk-docid, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Fast-track some old but widely deployed documents to full standard [draft-ietf-newtrk-promotion] - Abolish "STD 1" RFCs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes]. - Document separation between individual submissions and RFC Editor independent submissions, IAB, and IRTF documents. [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] - 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] - Remove idea of a requirements document as conformance specification. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Specify seperating normative and informative references, and pointing out down-reference procedures [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Call out normative dependency rules. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Apply "requirements levels" to all specs and BCPs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Rename Proposed Standard as "Preliminary Standard" [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Remove implementation warnings about PS documents [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Rename Draft Standard as "Deployable Standard" [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Loosen the DS advancement rules to give discretion to IESG [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Point out that Informational and Experimental RFCs are sometimes protocols and often get reviewed by the IESG [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Require AD sponsorship of non-WG Informational or Experimental except for RFC Editor submissions [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - IESG assigns Historic status [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Don't expire drafts under any kind of IESG consideration. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Document the I-D archive. [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - 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] - Remove IESG "stuck at level" document review requirement and make it the community's responsibility to request such review [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Remove reference to RFC 1 [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Add reference to RFC Editor errata [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - 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] - Drop Draft Standard level [draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage] - Allow a document to contain it's own process variance statement [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Update the reference to the RFC formatting rules [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - WG drafts have time limits for publication [draft-huston-ietf-pact] IESG/WG procedural changes - Mandatory independent technical review before IESG review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] - 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] - AD designated reviewer which can substitute for AD review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] - WG chairs and document editors participate in IESG deliberation [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] - Assign IAB task of technical review of documents (instead of IESG) [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] - Cross area review teams review documents before IESG (and have force of IESG decisions) [draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea] - Separate Internet Standards Review Panel (ISRP) from the IESG [draft-klensin-stds-review-panel] - Restructure IETF into Ops, Sec, and Gen, with IAB review [draft-bradner-ietf-proc-ideas] - Allow any decsion by IESG, chairs, or other appointed roles, to be appealable [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Increase the size of the IESG and divide/disperse tasks of document review and WG management [draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel] - 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] - Allow WGs to have the secretariat keep the e-mail archive [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] - Allow spam to be deleted from WG archives [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes] 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] Other changes - Clarify interaction between IETF and other SDOs [draft-carpenter-rfc2026-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]