Network Working Group J. Klensin Internet-Draft February 08, 2004 Expires: August 8, 2004 Narrowing IESG Process Flexibilities draft-klensin-process-planb-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract One basic model for IETF operations is that the IESG is given general guidance in specific procedural documents but sufficient discretion and flexibility to adapt the rules and make new ones in order to make the IETF work smoothly. This model underlies a number of reform proposals, including recent ones from this author. However, there has been an undercurrent of suspicion from some members of the community -- suspicion that the IESG is abusive of that discretion and cannot be trusted. Those suspicions have, to some extent, been reinforced by questions about IESG-adopted procedures that seem to contradict procedures approved by the community and documented in BCPs. The community cannot move forward with models based on both trust and distrust in the IESG's ability, and level of responsibility, to do its job. In an attempt to focus this part of Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 the debate, this document proposes to dramatically narrow IESG's scope of authority and discretion. In particular, it proposes to move the IESG, procedurally, onto an "anything not explicitly required is forbidden" model, and, indeed, a very narrow and punitive member of that family. While the author believes this would be a terrible idea, it appears to be time that the community either focuses on it and moves in this direction or stops wasting time hinting about it. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6 Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 1. Introduction One basic model for IETF operations is that the IESG is given general guidance in specific procedural documents but sufficient discretion and flexibility to adapt the rules and make new ones in order to make the IETF work smoothly. This model underlies a number of reform proposals, including recent ones from this author. However, there has been an undercurrent of suspicion from some members of the community -- suspicion that the IESG is abusive of that discretion and cannot be trusted. Those suspicions have, to some extent, been reinforced by questions about IESG-adopted procedures that seem to contradict procedures approved by the community and documented in BCPs. The community cannot move forward with models based on both trust and distrust in the IESG's ability, and level of responsibility, to do its job. In an attempt to focus this part of the debate, this document proposes to dramatically narrow IESG's scope of authority and discretion. This document proposes that there is an IETF consensus that the IESG should not have the discretionary authority to make changes in, extend, or even interpret, written IETF procedures. This author hopes that consensus does not exist and, indeed, that the opposite consensus exists because he believes that having a set of rigid procedures that can be modified only by full community review is the path to permanent paralysis. But a number of mailing list discussions have implied that such consensus exists and that it is not appropriate for IESG to have broad discretion in procedural matters, so this document is offered as a way to focus that discussion. 1.1 Terminology The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. 2. Proposal It is the consensus of the community that IETF procedures as expressed in, e.g., BCP 9 [2] and BCP 25 [3] are adequate, necessary, and sufficient for IETF operations and that any modifications, extensions, or additional details to those procedures that are to be established as general procedural rules must be documented, reviewed by the community, and adopted as reflections of community consensus before being utilized. Consequently: Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 1. All procedures, standing rules, "nits", standing working group procedures, or requirements for I-D or RFC format or content, adopted by IESG action without I-D publication, IETF Last Call and (at least pending) RFC publication since the September 1998 publication date of RFC 2418 are abolished as of ninety days after approval of this document unless they are approved during that period using the procedures below. This provision is referred to elsewhere in this document as the "ninety day sunset" provision. Ninety days was chosen to allow a reasonable, although minimum, time for publication of drafts, discussion, a four-week Last Call, and IESG review and determination of action to be taken. 2. Within the ninety day period, the IESG may generate one or more Internet-Drafts proposing relevant procedures, circulate them for discussion within the community, and then initiate a four-week Last Call. If the Last Call demonstrates community consensus, the IESG MAY adopt some or all of the specified procedures as proposed and request publication of the relevant documents as BCP RFCs, updating BCP 9 and/or BCP 25 as appropriate. 3. The IESG may, at any time and using the procedures outlined in BCP 9 and/or BCP 25, create design teams, working groups, or other bodies and charter them to design and/or evaluate procedural modifications. However, the creation of such groups to review particular proposed procedures will not impact or suspend the "ninety day" provisions above unless the work of those groups is completed, subjected to Last Call, and approved within that period. 4. Future new or modified procedures may be adopted only by a process that involves publication of drafts, community review, IETF Last Call, IESG determination of community consensus, approval and publication. 5. All IESG decisions required above are subject to the usual appeals provisions and procedures. However, IESG MUST NOT take any actions to adopt procedures using mechanisms in violation of those outlined above or take actions not authorized by the various procedural documents. Should IESG take such action, the IESG members supporting it are subject to recall according to the procedures described in BCP 10 [4] with the additional stipulation that, if a recall action is brought citing this document, the recall committee may only make a determination as to whether the IESG member supported the procedural violation. If they conclude that he or she did support it, recall is mandatory and no other considerations apply. The author would like to stress, again, that he does not consider this proposal a good idea and that at least a few of its provisions might be excessively draconian even if it were. Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 3. Security Considerations This document specifies a drastically revised model for enforcing and extending IETF procedures. It does not raise or consider any protocol-specific security issues. However, the author notes that the "ninety day sunset" rule would presumably eliminate the current requirement for a "Security Considerations" section, and some boilerplate specified by the IESG, in all RFCs. If the proposal is adopted, those who believe those provisions are important should take quick action to reinstate them. 4. Acknowledgements The author wishes to credit stories about Damocles and Dionysius the Elder for considerable inspiration in formulating some of the provisions of this proposal. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels'", RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, BCP 0009, October 1996. [3] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 0025, RFC 2418, September 1998. [4] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 0010, RFC 2727, March 1997. Author's Address John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Phone: +1 617 491 5735 EMail: john-ietf@jck.com Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Process Prohibitions February 2004 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Klensin Expires August 8, 2004 [Page 7]