idnits 2.17.1 draft-blanchet-evolutionizeietf-suggestions-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 154 has weird spacing: '...g group helpe...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 26, 2002) is 7819 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '1' is defined on line 164, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '2' is defined on line 167, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 170, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet M. Blanchet 3 Internet-Draft Viagenie inc. 4 Expires: May 27, 2003 November 26, 2002 6 Suggestions to Streamline the IETF Process 7 draft-blanchet-evolutionizeietf-suggestions-00 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 25 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2003. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 The intent is to document problems in the IETF process and to suggest 39 simple solutions that can be easily implemented and do not require 40 major changes in the IETF organisation, following the value of 41 "running code". 43 1. Use of keyword 45 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 46 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 47 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 49 2. Document Structure 51 This first version of this document was written during the 52 presentations of the Atlanta ietf plenary on the subject of 53 evolutionizing the IETF. It started with the author personal views 54 of problems and solutions and then was revised based on feedback. 56 The document is structered in the following way: for each problem, a 57 problem statement is written and one or many solutions is listed. 58 Problem statements are labeled and numbered with P## and suggested 59 solutions with S## in order to identify them when discussing. P## 60 and S## numbering are independant each other and are not ordered in 61 any specific way. 63 3. Problem Statements and Suggested Solutions 65 o P1: WG chairs that do not understand the process cannot use the 66 tools available to them most effectively, and may bias or delay 67 the outcome of the process. 69 S1: WG chairs MUST be formed and know the details of the 70 process. New wg chairs MUST attend to wg chair "course" on 71 their first IETF meeting as chairs 73 o P2: Groups work very slowly if the chair is not paying attention, 74 fore example when WG chairs are busy with their own life/work. 76 S2: a wg SHOULD have 2 wg chairs 78 o P3: WG charters and requirements are not clear at the beginning 80 S3: before wg is started, the charter AND the requirement 81 document SHOULD HAVE reached concensus. 83 o P4: Waiting for IETF meetings to identify/reach concensus 84 sometimes delays too much the advancement of the working group. 85 Judging concensus based on mailing list comments does not usually 86 show the silent majority opinion. 88 S4: A fair concensus tool between IETF meetings is required. 89 An online voting tool to help sense concensus in the wg between 90 ietf should be available for all wg. (This topic seems 91 contentious in problem-statement mailing list. it could be 92 withdrawn in next version.) 94 o P5: The problems in a design that need expertise from other areas 95 to catch are caught late in the process, if at all. 97 S5: have area experts (i.e. for each area) pre-assigned to 98 each wg. They report to the chairs and AD of the wg, not 99 theirs 101 o P6: Lack of transparency: design teams are perceived as a way to 102 bypass the wg, to push forward the opinions of the members of 103 these design teams. Design team member selection is often done 104 behind the scenes. 106 S6: Instead of using design teams, chairs ask many individuals 107 to write a document on the subject matter, and use the wg 108 procedures for that document. 110 o P7: Interim meeting are often called with not enough notice in 111 advance with the important information needed to schedule: agenda, 112 location, dates. This results in important scheduling problems 113 for people who want to attend the meeting. The final result is 114 the absence of people that could give good input. 116 * S7: interim meetings should be called with sufficient advance 117 notice (6 weeks min.) which MUST include the proposed agenda, 118 the location (nearest airport at least) and the dates. 120 o P8: Some comments are lost without being addressed by document 121 authors. It is hard for others to see what outstanding comments 122 there are. 124 * S8: have a formal tracking system to track document comments. 126 o P9: Room concensus request are often unclear and do not give good 127 results. 129 * S9: any room concensus MUST use hands NOT humms. Questions and 130 choices to vote MUST be written on the screen and the meaning 131 being verified and agreed before proceeding to the concensus 132 pool. 134 o P10: Non-English speakers find it easier to read questions from a 135 screen than to be sure they understand a spoken question. 137 S10: Chairs and proposers MUST write questions/proposals/... 138 on the screen before any discussion 140 o P11: The chairs and ADs might be seen to use their status for 141 pushing their own documents or proposals. 143 * S11: If a wg chair or AD is an author of a wg doc, he should 144 find a co-author and have his co-author make presentations. 146 4. Security Considerations 148 If we don't streamline the IETF process, we might end up either: 149 doing too late standards to secure the Internet or pushing bad 150 unsecure protocols. 152 5. Acknowledgements 154 All the people involved in the idn working group helped me to learn 155 to try to be a wg co-chair are acknowledged here, in particular 156 Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Harald Alvestrand, John Klensin, James 157 Seng and Paul Hoffman. 159 The new revision of the document was based on suggestions from: 160 Harald Alvestrand. 162 References 164 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 165 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 167 [2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 168 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 170 [3] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 171 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 173 Author's Address 175 Marc Blanchet 176 Viagenie inc. 177 2875 boul. Laurier, bureau 300 178 Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2M2 179 Canada 181 Phone: +1 418 656 9254 182 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 183 URI: http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/ 185 Full Copyright Statement 187 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 189 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 190 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 191 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 192 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 193 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 194 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 195 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 196 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 197 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 198 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 199 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 200 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 201 English. 203 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 204 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 206 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 207 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 208 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 209 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 210 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 211 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 213 Acknowledgement 215 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 216 Internet Society.