idnits 2.17.1
draft-zinin-icar-arts-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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about
Internet-Drafts being working documents.
** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months
document validity.
== No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
Standard
== The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 10
longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines
== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
feeds but 11 pages
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 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 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 (March 2004) is 7339 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)
No issues found here.
Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Network Working Group Alex Zinin
3 Internet Draft Alcatel
4 Expiration Date: September 2004 March 2004
5 File name: draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt
7 Area Review Teams for
8 Early Cross-functional Reviews
10 draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt
12 Status of this Memo
14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
15 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
17 Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
18 Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other
19 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts.
21 Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
22 months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
23 other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
24 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
25 draft" or "work in progress".
27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
33 Abstract
35 This document contains a proposal for cross-functional IETF review
36 process that can be initiated at early stages of a document life
37 cycle. The approach is based on existing experience with area
38 directorates and other expert groups within the IETF.
40 Please send any comments on this document to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org)
42 1. Introduction
44 Cross-functional (intra-area and cross-area) review are the
45 properties of the IETF that are supposed to ensure high quality of
46 the produced technologies, their scalability and safety for the
47 Internet as a whole. It has been widely acknowledged that these
48 properties are among the core values of the IETF and have to be
49 preserved in order for the IETF to continue being a successful
50 engineering and standards organization.
52 Currently, the AD review and IESG review processes are the only
53 formal ways within the IETF to ensure cross-functional, and in
54 particular cross-area reviews. Since these reviews happen only when
55 the documents are submitted for final approval, issues are brought up
56 late in the process, often when contributors have invested a lot of
57 cycles into the document, the technology has possibly been
58 implemented, and changes in direction or certain technical details
59 are painful and frustrating. If interim cross-functional or cross-
60 area review is needed, it is currently done informally, and this
61 process is not necessarily coordinated with the following review by
62 the IESG members.
64 Creating a more formal and better described mechanism for cross-area
65 review that would be coordinated with the IESG review process, and
66 could be involved at any point within a life cycle of a document
67 should substantially improve the quality of the documents submitted
68 to the IESG and minimize the number of substantial issues identified
69 late in the process. A straight-forward way to do this could be to
70 request interim IESG review before the document is completed and
71 submitted for final approval. However, if applied to a considerable
72 number of documents (and we do want more documents to benefit from
73 cross-area review), this would put additional load on the IESG and
74 could impact document processing time.
76 This document proposes a cross-area review process that should have
77 better scaling characteristics. The method is based on delegation of
78 the document review function from ADs to the area review teams,
79 currently known as "area directorates" in some areas, or "doctor
80 groups" in others. Note that the described process does not obviate
81 the need for the cross-functional peer review performed by regular
82 IETF participants (members of the review teams or not). On the other
83 hand, the peer review process can be improved by directly (and
84 informally) soliciting comments from the review teams.
86 The proposed method is based on the experience several IETF Area
87 Directors have with involving groups of experts in the process of
88 early document review and during the IESG review cycle.
90 More specifically:
92 o the Routing Area Directors have been using the Routing Area
93 Directorate group (rtg-dir) for review of the documents coming
94 out of the WGs within the Routing Area before they are submit-
95 ted for final approval to the IESG. The directorate is also
96 asked to review certain documents appearing on the IESG agenda
97 from time to time.
99 o Operations directorate (ops-dir) has also been used for early
100 document review and during the IESG review period.
102 o The MIB-Doctors group is consistently involved in preparation
103 of MIB documents before they are brought to the IESG
105 Should add info on the Transport-Doctors group here
106
108 At this point the process of document review by these expert groups
109 is not described and has no formal standing with the IETF. Not all
110 areas have similar expert groups and/or they are not publicly known
111 to the wide community. There is also no described way for WG chairs
112 to request review by experts groups in other areas and expect a guar-
113 anteed follow-up.
115 This proposal formalizes the notion of such expert review teams,
116 describes how they are used for cross-functional review, the relation
117 of this process to the final IESG review process, and how the cross-
118 functional review can be requested and should be followed up on.
120 2. Proposal
122 2.1 Overview
124 Briefly, the cross-functional review process may be described as fol-
125 lows.
127 Each area has an area review team (ART) which ADs delegate the
128 interim document review function to. When necessary (early in the
129 process, or during the WG Last call, or both), the WG chairs request
130 the review for a document by sending an e-mail to all required ARTs
131 (at a minimum the ART of the area the WG belongs to). The IETF-wide
132 Last Call announcement is cc'ed to all ARTs. Provided feedback is
133 taken to the WG for discussion. Consistency with the later IESG
134 review process is ensured through training of the reviewers by the
135 ADs and reviewers communicating the recommendations wrt the documents
136 to the ADs.
138 The following sections provide more details regarding the proposed
139 approach.
141 2.2 Assumptions
142 The described proposal is predicated on certain assumptions that are
143 worth spelling out:
145 1. The IESG remains the body responsible for final approval of
146 the IETF documents.
148 The implication of this assumption is that the documents will
149 finally have to go through the IESG review process with indi-
150 vidual IESG members checking the document. This implies that
151 interim reviews performed before that stage should be coordi-
152 nated with later IESG reviews. Otherwise it is possible that
153 the issues discussed previously will be brought up again. The
154 coordination is also need to usefully off-load (part of) the
155 document review function from individual ADs.
157 2. The ADs remain to be trusted by the community (through the
158 NomCom process) to function as final document reviewers and
159 are responsible for the document quality.
161 The implication here is that since the ADs are held responsi-
162 ble for the results of the document review, they need to feel
163 comfortable delegating this review function to the ART mem-
164 bers, which will have bearings on the method of ART member
165 selection.
167 The reasoning behind using these assumptions is to use the existing
168 mechanisms and tools (known running code) as much as possible and
169 avoid extreme changes to the document approval process that may
170 result in a DoS on it.
172 2.3 Area Review Teams
174 Each area creates an Area Review Team (ART) that is addressable
175 through a well-known mailing list address (e.g. "-review@ietf.org"). At a minimum, the group includes the ADs,
177 however it is expected that it will include technical experts, will-
178 ing to contribute their time to reviewing the IETF documents from the
179 same and other areas and providing consultation to the area direc-
180 tors. The ADs will delegate the review function for some (or all)
181 documents to ART members.
183 Selection of the ART members is done personally by the ADs. Possible
184 variations, however, may include open call for nominations, followed
185 up by ADs interviewing the candidates and personally approving them.
187
189 See assumption 2 in section 2.2 for the reasons
190
192 When a document needs to be reviewed by ART, the AD assigns two ART
193 members as "token holders". All ART members are encouraged to review
194 the document, however, the token holders are held responsible for
195 providing comments within a 2-week time frame and following up on
196 them with the document authors and/or the hosting WG. The token hold-
197 ers will also provide the ADs with their recommendation including the
198 summary of the discussion, the list of issues and how they have been
199 addressed.
201 2.4 Cross-Area Review Process
203 This section describes the actual cross-functional review process
204 that can be initiated at any point within the life cycle of a docu-
205 ment. This process is automatically initiated whenever an IETF- wide
206 Last Call is started for a document.
208 1. The set of area review teams engaged is determined by the ini-
209 tiator of the review process in consultation with the respon-
210 sible AD. At a minimum, this set includes the ART of the host-
211 ing area. For the IETF Last Call, this set includes all ARTs.
213
215 the stimulus behind choosing the right set of review teams is
216 to get the review comments that are likely to be brought up
217 during the final IESG review earlier in the process
219
221 The set of review teams may also include the IAB review team
222 (assuming this is a subset of IAB members, or the IAB itself
223 otherwise).
225 2. An e-mail message with the review request is sent to the mail-
226 ing lists of all ARTs that need to be engaged.
228 3. ADs for each engaged ART have the choice of either "signing
229 off" on the referred document if they believe that the docu-
230 ment does not need a detailed review from the perspective of
231 that area, or assigning the token holders (2 persons) that
232 will conduct the document review within a 2-week time frame.
233 Other members of the review teams are strongly encouraged to
234 provide feedback, but will not be held responsible for this by
235 the ADs.
237 4. Document reviewers bring their concerns to the attention of
238 the document authors and/or the WG via e-mail communication on
239 the WG mailing list and (if necessary) the mailing list of the
240 ART they are members of.
242 5. Based on the discussion with the authors/within the WG, the
243 reviewers provide their responsible AD with a recommendation
244 regarding the document. The recommendation includes the sum-
245 mary of the review, as well as the list of issues and their
246 resolution.
248 6. The authors/WG treat the feedback as part of the WG or IETF-
249 wide review process
251
253 An important point here is that the discussion initiated by
254 this review process is integrated within the normal WG
255 process, rather than treated as a pronouncement from a higher
256 authority.
258
260 7. If a document returns to an ART (e.g., the document is under
261 the IETF Last Call and was reviewed during the WG Last Call),
262 the same token holders will "own" the document whenever possi-
263 ble. The token holders check that the new revision of the doc-
264 ument reflects the previous discussion correctly. If no addi-
265 tional concerns arise, the recommendation to the ADs of the
266 ART remain the same.
268 8. The ADs have the power to bring up during the IESG review
269 process the reviewers' comments that were not addressed by the
270 authors/WG if they believe this is appropriate. The ADs also
271 have the power to override the comments from their correspond-
272 ing review teams.
274
276 The above gives the ADs the ability to insist on fixing cer-
277 tain comments that they believe represent serious issues if
278 they were discarded while processing the cross-area review
279 feedback during the WG process as described above. This also
280 gives them the right to withdraw certain points from the con-
281 sideration or change them if they believe this is appropriate
282 for the progress of a document. This is consistent with the
283 concept that the ADs are responsible for the final document
284 approval and that the review teams provide their expert
285 recommendations based on the discussions within the WG.
287
289 2.5 Role of Cross-Area Review within the Standards Process
291 The cross-function review process is integrated within the IETF Stan-
292 dards Process as described below:
294 1. WG process:
296 When initiated early within the life cycle of a document, the
297 feedback from the cross-area review process is considered part
298 of the WG discussion and consensus forming process.
300 2. WG Last Calls:
302 It is expected that the cross-area review will also be
303 requested during the WG LC period. Procedurally, this will
304 have the same value as during the WG process, but would ensure
305 that final cross-area checks are performed before the docu-
306 ments comes to the IESG.
308 3. AD-review process
310 It is expected that the ADs will use the review teams to dele-
311 gate the review function and thus off-load a considerable part
312 of this function when and as deemed appropriate. The ADs are
313 expected to coordinate with the ART members to ensure that
314 consistent review criteria is applied to documents so that
315 most issues that would otherwise be brought up during the AD-
316 review process are resolved earlier in the life cycle of the
317 document.
319
321 Note that ADs are given a tool they can use to off-load docu-
322 ment review to the extent they believe is necessary, but they
323 are not required to do so. It is then left to the ADs to make
324 sure they are using this tool appropriately and sufficiently.
326
328 4. IETF Last Call
330 As all ARTs are informed about IETF Last Calls, it is expected
331 that by the time the documents is on the IESG agenda, it will
332 have received adequate cross-functional review and all ADs
333 will have some recommendation on the document from their ARTs.
335 5. IESG review process
337 It is expected that individual ADs will organize the review
338 process in the review teams in such a way that a positive rec-
339 ommendation from the review team should be sufficient for the
340 ADs to feel comfortable that most of the possible technical
341 issues have been identified, followed up on, and resolved, and
342 that the ADs only need to look for very high-level, architec-
343 tural issues. This, in turn, should a) decrease the amount of
344 time the ADs need to spend on the document review and follow
345 up, and b) minimize the number of "late surprises" arising
346 during the IESG review process.
348 2.6 Initiation of Review Process
350 The cross-functional review process can be initiated either by an AD
351 or by a WG chair after consultation with the ADs.
353
355 Consultation with the AD is a sanity check to make sure the set of
356 engage ARTs is chosen right
358
360 The review process may be initiated at an early stage of a document
361 (e.g. when the WG is starting to consider an approach) to ensure
362 architectural validity and correctness of the general direction
364 The review process should be initiated as part of the WG LC to mini-
365 mize late surprises during the IESG review process
367 The review process must be initiated for all documents going through
368 the IETF Last Call.
370 The same process may be used by the ADs and the RFC-Editor to request
371 cross-functional review for individual submissions they are shepherd-
372 ing or checking for conflicts.
374 A simplified version of this process (no token holders, no issue
375 tracking within ARTs, etc.) can be used to inform ART members about
376 technical discussions and solicit their comments.
378 2.7 Documenting Results of Review
379 It is important that the feedback from ARTs and the results of the
380 discussion with the authors/WG are documented for later reference
381 during the IESG review process.
383 For WG documents this is ensures by the WG chairs who keep track of
384 the issues (as part of the improved WG process) and summarize them
385 when submitting the document to their ADs for IESG processing.
387 For individual submissions this function is either performed by the
388 review initiator (an AD) or delegated to a member of the review team
389 with a consequent report to the ADs
391 For ARTs in the other (non-hosting) area, token holders within the
392 review team assigned to the documents are responsible for tracking
393 the issues on their side and summarizing them in their recommendation
394 to the ADs
396 2.8 Trust, Responsibility, and Accountability
398 An important aspect of the proposal documented here is that the mod-
399 els of trust, responsibility, and accountability currently used and
400 practiced within the IETF are not changed.
402 More specifically, the ADs, selected by the NomCom process as indi-
403 viduals "trusted" by the community to perform the ultimate technical
404 review and document approval functions, are still held responsible
405 and accountable for these functions. In other words, the tool of del-
406 egating the document review function to the review teams does not
407 remove the responsibility of the ADs for the results of such review.
408 The ADs are expected to personally ensure that the individuals
409 selected by them as members of the review teams have appropriate
410 qualification (through required training if needed) to perform this
411 function. It is also the AD's responsibility to adjust the list of
412 members (hire more members or fire ill-performing ones) to maintain
413 adequacy of the review process and require level of off-loading.
415 2.10 Motivation and Credit
417 The following methods are proposed to make the role of an ART member
418 attractive and keep ART members motivated and acknowledged:
420 1. Formalization of the review team role.
422 Formal introduction of ARTs within the IETF standard process
423 should result in recognition of this role individual members
424 and their employers.
426 2. Open area meetings (plenary)
428 It is possible to give ART members public exposure by holding
429 ART plenary during the open area meetings
431 3. Acknowledging reviewers
433 Reviewers engaged in ARTs are acknowledged in the published
434 RFCs.
436 4. Dots on the badges
438 ART members are identified at the face-to-face meetings with
439 dots on their badges
441 3. Problems being addressed
443 The proposal described here addresses the following problems experi-
444 enced within the IESG and IETF in general:
446 1. Low document quality
448 It is expected that additional review of the documents should
449 substantially improve the quality of the IETF documents.
451 2. Individual AD load
453 It is expected that improved quality of the documents submit-
454 ted to the ADs for AD-review, should decrease the amount of
455 time spent on document review and follow-up on the issues.
456 Delegation of the document review function should also result
457 in considerable off-loading.
459 3. Overall IESG load
461 Is is expected that improved quality of the documents submit-
462 ted to the IESG should decrease the document review load on
463 the IESG. Reports from the ARTs on previously reviewed docu-
464 ments should also make it easier for individual IESG members
465 to assess the quality of incoming documents.
467 4. Late surprises
469 Earlier cross-functional review coordinated with later IESG
470 review should minimize the number of unexpected issues identi-
471 fied at the later stages of a document life cycle.
473 5. Lack of cross-area review
475 This proposal directly encourages cross-area review
477 6. Lack of cross-functional expertise
479 This proposal should encourage learning of technologies in
480 different areas of IETF and should help growing cross-area
481 expertise.
483 7. Growing future management
485 Involvement of more IETF participants in the Standards Process
486 should help increase the number of individuals capable of per-
487 forming the tasks of WG chairs and IESG members.
489 4. Security Considerations
491 This type of non-protocol document does not directly affect the secu-
492 rity of the Internet. However, the cross-functional review process
493 described here should improve the security aspects of specific
494 approaches being reviewed.
496 5. References
498 6. Acknowledgements
500 The author would like to thank Harald Alvestrand and Ted Hardie for
501 their comments on the document.
503 7. Author's address
505 Alex Zinin
506 Alcatel
507 E-mail: zinin@psg.com