< draft-iesg-charter-01.txt   draft-iesg-charter-02.txt >
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: July 7, 2003 January 6, 2003 Expires: October 8, 2003 April 9, 2003
An IESG charter An IESG charter
draft-iesg-charter-01 draft-iesg-charter-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 skipping to change at page 1, line 31
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2003. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2003.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This memo gives a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering Group This memo gives a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG), a management function of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IESG), a management function of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). (IETF).
It is meant to document the charter of the IESG as presently It is meant to document the charter of the IESG as presently
understood (Jan 2003). understood.
Discussion of this memo is encouraged on the POISED mailing list Discussion of this memo is encouraged on the POISED mailing list
<poised@lists.tislab.com> <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
STATUS NOTE (to be removed from RFC):
This document is intended for publication as an Informational
document, detailing the instructions to the IESG that the IESG thinks
it has been operating under. It does not claim to represent
consensus of the IETF that this is the right set of instructions to
the IESG. At this time (spring 2003), the structure of the IETF is
undergoing reevaluation, and the result is likely to include changes
to the IESG's role; spending time to get IETF consensus that this
document represents the IETF consensus on what the IESG should do,
which a BCP publication would indicate, seems like a less than useful
exercise.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1 The role of the IESG 1.1 The role of the IESG
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the operational and The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the group that
technical management function of the Internet Engineeering Task Force exists to perform the overarching operational and technical
(IETF). management functions of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).
It is tasked with making the management decisions about working As part of this function, the IESG is tasked with making the
groups in the IETF, and with the final review and approval of management decisions about working groups in the IETF, and with the
documents published as IETF standards-track documents. final review and approval of documents produced by Working Groups and
documents published as IETF standards-track documents, and review of
other candidates for RFC publication.
1.2 Historic note 1.2 Historic note
The role of the IESG in the IETF management structure has been The role of the IESG in the IETF management structure has been
largely constant since 1992, when the structure of the Internet largely constant since 1992, when the structure of the Internet
standards process was defined by RFC 1310 (which was later updated by standards process was defined by RFC 1310 (which was later updated by
RFC 1602, RFC 1871 and RFC 2026). RFC 1602, RFC 1871 and RFC 2026).
Some of the functions were also defined in RFC 1603 (which was later Some of the functions were also defined in RFC 1603, Working Group
updated by RFC 2418). Guidelines, which was later updated by RFC 2418 [2].
As the community has grown, and the IESG has gathered experience, the As the community has grown, and the IESG has gathered experience, the
way in which the IESG approaches its tasks has varied considerably, ways in which the IESG has approeched its tasks have varied
but the tasks have remained relatively constant. considerably, but the tasks have remained relatively constant.
This document describes the tasks assigned to the IESG. It does not This document describes the tasks assigned to the IESG. It does not
attempt to describe the procedures the IESG uses to accomplish these attempt to describe the procedures the IESG uses to accomplish these
tasks; that is done in other memos. tasks; that is done elsewhere - consult the IESG's Web pages on the
IETF Website for more information.
2. The composition of the IESG 2. The composition of the IESG
The IESG has the following members: The IESG has the following members:
o The IETF Chair, who is also the General AD o The IETF Chair, who may also function as an Area Director when
appropriate
o The Area Directors for the IETF Areas o The Area Directors for the IETF Areas
o The IAB Chair and the IETF Executive Director, as ex-officio o The IAB Chair and the IETF Executive Director, as ex-officio
members of the IESG. members of the IESG.
o Liaisons o Liaisons
The Chair and the Area Directors are selected by the IETF NomCom The IETF Chair and the Area Directors are selected by the IETF NomCom
according to the procedures of RFC 2282 (Nomcom procedures). according to the procedures of BCP 10 [3] (Nomcom procedures).
The IETF Executive Director is appointed by the IETF Chair, and is
charged with running the IETF Secretariat; traditionally, this
position has been held by a person employed full-time by the
organization performing the secretariat function.
The Liaison positions exist to facilitate the work of the IETF by
expediting communication with other entities involved in the IETF
process; which positions to have is decided by the IESG.
The liaisons are selected as appropriate by the bodies they
represent. At the time of this writing, the liaisons present
represent the following bodies:
The RFC Editor The RFC Editor
The IANA The IANA
The IAB The IAB
In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the
mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to mailing list and present in the IESG meetings as needed in order to
serve as a support function. serve as a support function.
Decisions of the IESG are made by the IETF Chair and the Area Decisions of the IESG are made by the IETF Chair and the Area
Directors. Directors. All IESG members can participate in the IESG's
discussions.
3. The IESG role in working group management 3. Procedural issues
3.1 Working group creation While the IESG is generally free to set its own procedures, some
parts of the procedures are properly part of its charter. These are
given here.
The formation of working groups is described in RFC 2418 section 2. 3.1 Decision making
The normal case is that a working group is requested by members of The IESG attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
the IETF community. cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine
consensus. The IESG may make decisions and take action if at least
two thirds of the members concur and there are no more than two
dissents.
Each area director is responsible for ensuring that a working group For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the
being chartered is relevant, has achievable goals and constitutes an Area Directors are counted.
acceptable risk, has sufficient interest and so on. The charter is
the result of a negotiation between the AD and the prospective The IESG may decide that other procedures for reaching a decision are
chairs, with review by the IAB and approval by the IESG. Normally, apporpriate under specific conditions. Such other procedures may
there will be communication with the community of interest for the include:
working group too.
o Assertions of IETF consensus, such as when evaluating a standards
action. Here, in addition to the technical quality of the
specification, the IESG has to evaluate the community opinion
about the specification's subject matter; this has to happen with
due notice and opportunity for community feedback.
o IESG actions in areas where the IESG has the authority to take
action. This does not need special rules.
o AD actions taken with the advice and consent of the IESG; the IESG
is expected to be kept informed, and gives comment, but the
authority to act is delegated to the AD.
o AD action; cases where an AD can take independent action without
the need to consult the IESG first.
The IESG may reach decisions by face to face meeting, teleconference,
Internet communication, or any combination of the above.
3.2 Openness and confidentiality
The IESG publishes the record of decisions from all its meetings on
the Internet, and conducts an open meeting at every IETF meeting. It
publishes all its final decisions as RFCs, Internet Drafts or
messages to the IETF-announce mailing list, with copies kept on the
IETF website where appropriate.
The IESG also discusses its business privately as a group, using any
means of its choice, including email. Records of those discussions
are not required to be made public. This is believed to be vital in
permitting a frank exchange of viewpoints and worries, allowing
people to speak out freely on topics known to be controversial, and
permitting people to change their minds based on presented arguments.
Decisions and their justification are a matter of public record.
However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and
financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential,
and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude
liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as
inappropriate for the particular discussion from such discussions.
The chair may also apply exclusion to full members who have a serious
conflict of interest on an issue. Members can also choose to recuse
themselves from discussion of an issue, or refrain from casting a
vote on an issue, if they feel that is appropriate.
4. The IESG role in working group management
The IESG is in charge of managing the working group process. While
the process of running a working group is delegated to the working
group chairs, the IESG is in charge of those processes that are
beyond the scope of the working group chair's role. Most of these
functions are delegated by the IESG to a single Area Director - the
"responsible Area Director" for the group.
4.1 Working group creation
The formation of working groups is described in BCP 25 [2] section
2; this document does not repeat the text there, but gives some more
details of IESG actions.
A WG may be requested by members of the IETF community, who addresse
the request to an AD that the requesters feel is the appropriate AD
for the task, or the formation can be initiated by an AD. The IESG
may assign the prospective working group to another AD if the IESG
thinks that is best.
The AD is responsible for ensuring that a working group being
chartered fulfils the criteria for WG formation given in BCP 25. The
charter is the result of a negotiation between the AD and the
community of interest, with review and advice by the rest of the IESG
and the IAB.
The AD is also responsible for selecting chairs for the working group The AD is also responsible for selecting chairs for the working group
that he thinks will be up to the task. which the AD thinks will be up to the task.
All charters for proposed working groups are announced to the All charters for proposed working groups are announced to the
community at large before the IESG makes a decision. community at large when the IESG thinks that the charter is ready for
review, but before the IESG makes a final decision on chartering the
The BOF procedure described in RFC 2418 section 2.4 also requires WG. The final decision to charter a WG is an IESG decision.
approval from the relevant AD. A BOF is not required to start a
working group, and a BOF may be held without the purpose being to
create a working group. BOFs are also often discussed with the IESG
and IAB.
If an AD determines that it is needed, the AD can initiate the The BOF procedure described in BCP 25 [2] section 2.4 also requires
formation of a working group. approval from the relevant AD (the one who got the request or the AD
that the IESG thinks is the right AD to manage the task). A BOF is
not required to start a working group, and a BOF may be held without
the purpose being to create a working group. BOFs are also often
discussed with the IESG and IAB.
3.2 Working group management 4.2 Working group management
The role of the Area Director in WG management is described in RFC The role of the Area Director in WG management is described in BCP 25
2418 section 6.7. The AD is responsible for making sure the working [2] section 6.7. The AD is responsible for making sure the working
groups stay focused on the charter tasks, make forward progress, are groups stay focused on the charter tasks, make forward progress, are
coordinated with the rest of the area, and (with the IESG) coordinated with the rest of the area, and are coordinated with the
coordinated with the rest of the IETF. rest of the IETF. The ADs help each other with maintaining cross-
area coordination.
In a well functioning working group, main responsibility for these In a well functioning working group, main responsibility for these
things rests with the chairs; the AD will normally be able to things rests with the chairs; the AD will normally be able to
concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work. concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work.
When a WG finds that it is essential that work gets done which is not When a WG finds that it is essential that work gets done which is not
on its charter, the AD, consulting with the rest of the IESG as on its charter, the AD, consulting with the rest of the IESG as
required, is responsible for figuring out whether to add it to their required, is responsible for figuring out whether to add it to their
charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone outside the charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone outside the
WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG. WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG.
Substantive changes to the body of a WG's charter require the
approval of the IESG.
The Area Director is also responsible for picking and, when The Area Director is also responsible for picking and, when
necessary, replacing working group chairs. This is usually done in necessary, replacing working group chairs. This is done in
consultation with the IESG. consultation with the IESG, but the decision is made by the
responsible AD.
4. The IESG role in document review 4.3 Working group termination
4.1 Working group documents Terminating a WG is a decision of the responsible AD.
This role is described in RFC 2418 section 7.5, and RFC 2026 section A working group may be shut down when its work is completed, or when
6. The IESG role is one of review and approval. the AD concludes that letting the working group continue its work
does not contribute to the IETF's forward progress.
4.2 Non-working group documents The decision to terminate a working group must be announced, and the
reasons should be clearly given.
4.2.1 Standards-track 5. The IESG role in document review
This role is described in RFC 2026 section 6. Such documents are The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient
submitted to the IESG, which will assign them to a relevant area quality for release as RFCs, that they describe their subject matter
director. The IESG is responsible for determining: well, and that there are no outstanding engineering issues that
should be addressed before publication. The degree of review will
vary with the intended status and perceived importance of the
documents.
When there are problems or solutions that occur frequently, the IESG
may publish documents describing the problems and how to avoid them,
such as "IANA considerations" (BCP 26 [8]), or publish web pages with
commonly used guidelines.
Rules - stuff that the community is expected to follow - are decided
by IETF consensus processing and commonly published as BCP RFCs.
Guidance to the community that is of a more ephemeral and less
normative nature is decided by the IESG and published on the IESG's
Web pages.
5.1 Working group documents
This role is described in BCP 25 [2] section 7.5 and 8, and BCP 9 [1]
section 6. The IESG role is one of review and approval.
5.2 Non-working group documents
5.2.1 Standards-track documents
This role is described in BCP 9 [1] section 6. Such documents are
submitted to the IESG, which will assign them to a relevant AD. The
IESG is responsible for determining:
o Whether or not the specification is appropriate for standards o Whether or not the specification is appropriate for standards
track track
o Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more o Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more
existing WGs existing WGs
o Whether or not the quality of the specification is adequate o Whether or not the quality of the specification is adequate
The IESG may recommend that a document submitted for standards-track The IESG will either approve or disapprove of the publication of the
publication instead be published as Experimental or Informational. document on the standards track; no document can be published on the
standards track without IESG approval.
4.2.2 Informational and Experimental The IESG may decide that a document submitted for standards-track
publication should instead be published as Experimental or
Informational, or that a document submitted for Proposed standard
should be published as BCP, or vice versa.
These documents are usually submitted to the RFC Editor in accordance 5.2.2 Informational and Experimental documents
with the procedures of RFC 2026 section 4.2.3 and RFC 2418 section 8.
The IESG is asked to review all documents submitted in this fashion
for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the
IETF community; this is a modification of the RFC 2026 procedure, and
documented in RFC 2418 section 8.
The IESG may recommend that the document be reviewed by a working These documents are normally submitted to the RFC Editor in
group, that the document be published with an IESG note indicating accordance with the procedures of BCP 9 [1] section 4.2.3 and BCP 25
issues such as conflict with the IETF standards process, or may [2] section 8. The IESG is asked to review all documents submitted
recommend that the document not be published. in this fashion for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work
done in the IETF community; this is a modification of the BCP 9 [1]
procedure, and documented in BCP 25 [2] section 8.
4.3 IESG review procedures The IESG may recommend that the document be published as-is, that it
be reviewed by a working group, that the document be published with
an IESG note indicating issues such as conflict with the IETF
standards process, or may recommend that the document not be
published.
If the document is referred to a WG, the WG can recommend that the
document be adopted as a WG document, that it be published (possibly
with comments), or that the IESG recommend to the RFC Editor that it
not be published. The responsible AD for the WG is responsible for
getting a response from the WG in a timely manner.
NOTE IN DRAFT: The following text tries to capture the occasional
practice of processing individual documents through the IESG without
first going through the RFC Editor. It is not clear that the
description is accurate, so this may change. The IESG is discussing.
When an AD decides that an Informational or Experimental document is
of particular importance to the community, the AD may also choose to
put it directly before the IESG. This document will then be
processed in the same fashion as an Informational or Experimental
document from a working group.
5.3 IESG review procedures
The IESG review procedure is defined by the IESG. The IESG review procedure is defined by the IESG.
For all documents, the IESG assigns a specific AD the responsibility
for the document; that AD will normally review the document, and
possibly ask for revisions to it to address obvious problems, before
asking the entire IESG to consider it.
The IESG has web pages as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org); The IESG has web pages as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org);
current details of procedures should be published there. current details of procedures, as well as the means of finding the
responsible AD for any document, are published there.
5. The IESG role in area management 6. The IESG role in area management
The IETF divides its work into a number of areas, each comprising The IETF divides its work into a number of areas, each comprising
working groups that relate to that area's focus. (RFC 2418 section working groups that relate to that area's focus. (BCP 25 [2] section
1). The area structure is defined by the IESG, and may be changed by 1). The area structure is defined by the IESG, and the IESG can add
the IESG. The IESG decides which areas groups belong to. When areas, redefine areas, merge areas or close down areas.
reassigning areas, the IESG can move responsibility for areas between
IESG members, but the IESG can only add new members through the
nomcom process.
The primary task of area management is done by one or two area Changes to the area structure affect the IETF in many ways; decisions
directors per area. An area director may be advised by one or more to change the area structure are taken in consultation with the
directorates, which is selected and chaired by the area director (RFC community
2418 section 1). Directorates may be specific to an area, specific
to a technology, or chartered in some other fashion.
The ADs for an area are responsible for making sure the WGs in the When changing the area structure, the IESG can decide which ADs are
area are well coordinated, that there is coverage for the responsible for new and changed areas, including making one sitting
AD responsible for multiple areas, but the IESG can only add new
members through the nomcom process.
The primary task of area management is done by one or two Area
Directors per area. An AD may be advised by one or more
directorates, which are selected and chaired by the AD (BCP 25 [2]
section 1). Directorates may be specific to an area, specific to a
technology, or chartered in some other fashion.
The ADs for an area are jointly responsible for making sure the WGs
in the area are well coordinated, that there is coverage for the
technologies needed in the area, and that the challenges that are technologies needed in the area, and that the challenges that are
most important to the Internet in that area are indeed being worked most important to the Internet in that area are indeed being worked
on. on.
To that end, they may charter working groups, suggest modifications The IESG decides which areas working groups belong to.
to working group charters, encourage people to work on specific work
items within or outside working groups, or even shut down working
groups that are not performing an useful function.
6. Other IESG roles 7. Other IESG roles
6.1 Staff supervision 7.1 Staff supervision
The IESG is the main body responsible for supporting the IETF Chair The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the work of
in supervising the work of the IETF Secretariat. the IETF Executive Director and the IETF Secretariat, with the advice
and consent of the IESG, the IAB Chair and the ISOC president.
The supervision of the IANA and the RFC Editor is handled by the IAB. The supervision of the IANA and RFC-Editor functions is handled by
the IAB.
6.2 Process management 7.2 Process management
The IESG is responsible for making sure the IETF process is The IESG is responsible for making sure the IETF process is
functional in all aspects. This includes taking responsibility for functional in all aspects. This includes taking responsibility for
initiating consideration of updates of the process when required, as initiating consideration of updates to the process when required, as
well as addressing obvious miscarriages of process even when it does well as addressing obvious miscarriages of process even when they do
not fall into the categories described above. not fall into the categories described above.
6.3 External relations 7.3 External relations
The main responsibility for handling external relations rests with The responsibility for handling external relations rests with the
the IAB, as described in the IAB Charter (RFC 2850). However, when IAB, as described in the IAB Charter (RFC 2850). However, when
technical cooperation is required, it is essential that the work be technical cooperation is required, it is essential that the work be
coordinated with the relevant ADs. This often means that ADs will coordinated with the relevant ADs. This often means that ADs will
function in a liaison role with other organizations, but the same function in a liaison role with other organizations, but the IAB may
function may also be done by others when that seems more appropriate. decide that the same function may also be done by others when it
decides that this is more appropriate.
7. Procedural issues
While the IESG is generally free to set its own procedures, some
parts of the procedures are properly part of its charter. These are
given here.
7.1 Decision taking
The IESG attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine
consensus. The IESG may make decisions and take action if at least
seven members concur and there are no more than two dissents.
For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the
Area Directors are counted.
(NOTE: This rule is new, and has not been tried. Its inclusion here 7.4 Appeals actions
is only done to get around the "how do we decide about a challenge to
the rules" problem.)
The IESG may reach decisions by face to face meeting, teleconference, The formal appeals procedure is described in BCP 9 [1] section 6.5.
Internet communication, or any combination of the above.
7.2 Openness and confidentiality Most decisions by a working group chair can be appealed to the AD,
and decisions by an individual AD can be appealed to the IESG.
The IESG publishes minutes of all its meetings on the Internet, and Decisions of the IESG can be appealed to the IAB.
conducts an open meeting at every IETF meeting. It publishes all its
findings as RFCs, Internet Drafts or messages to the IETF-announce
mailing list. However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly
legal and financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept
confidential, and the chair may, with the consent of the full
members, exclude liaison and ex officio members from such
discussions.
8. Security considerations 8. Security considerations
The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper
thought to security. Apart from that, there seem to be no thought to security. Apart from that, there seem to be no
considerations of security relevant to this memo. considerations of security relevant to this memo.
References 9. Acknowledgements
[1] Chapin, A., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 1310, March
1992.
[2] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process -- This work has been supported, aided and abetted by the whole IESG of
Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994. the time of writing, and has benefitted from many other comments.
[3] Huizer, E. and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Thanks to David Putzolu, Pekka Savola, John Klensin, Margaret
Procedures", RFC 1603, March 1994. Wasserman, Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker, Jonne Soininen and all others
who provided comments on various versions of this document!
[4] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2, Normative references
RFC 1871, November 1995.
[5] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[6] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP [2] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[7] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall [3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
10, RFC 2282, February 1998. 10, RFC 2282, February 1998.
Informative references
[4] Chapin, A., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 1310, March
1992.
[5] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
[6] Huizer, E. and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", RFC 1603, March 1994.
[7] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2,
RFC 1871, November 1995.
[8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Weidemanns vei 27 Weidemanns vei 27
Trondheim 7043 Trondheim 7043
NO NO
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
147 lines changed or deleted 314 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/