Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:58:50 +0100

--On søndag, oktober 31, 2004 00:26:09 -0400 John R Levine <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> I agree with Juergen that the IRTF could use more visibility.  A clearer
> path to publishing informaitional and experimental RFCs would both be
> useful on its own merits and for the visibility issue.

Being somewhat disingenious:

What path could be clearer than "write a good internet-draft, get RG 
consensus on it, and ask the RFC Editor to publish it"?

I don't believe we can make it much simpler than that. (And the IESG has 
promised to mostly get out of the way of independent-submission publication 
- gives more responsibility to RG folks to get things right, but less 
hassle in the publication path)

                      Harald

_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Nov 2004 15:02:50 -0500

> consensus on it, and ask the RFC Editor to publish it"?

That seems pretty clear.  Once we do that, is it an irtf draft or an
independent submission?  I've gotten conflicting messages recently.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:37:57 +0100

> independent submission?  I've gotten conflicting messages recently.

IRTF drafts are treated like independent submissions - there are no special 
processing rules for them. Do we need any?

>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl,
> Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>
>

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Nov 2004 16:29:57 -0500

> processing rules for them. Do we need any?

Just that they're called draft-irtf-group-whatever so people who are
looking for them can find them.

Regards,

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:15:09 +1100

I would be reluctant to confuse this publication stream with individual 
submissions, and I think it would be useful to define a clear path via the 
IRTF Chair (or the IRSG) from the IRTF to the RFC Editor to a published 
document.

    Geoff

At 06:58 PM 1/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>--On søndag, oktober 31, 2004 00:26:09 -0400 John R Levine 
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>promised to mostly get out of the way of independent-submission 
>publication - gives more responsibility to RG folks to get things right, 
>but less hassle in the publication path)
>
>                      Harald
>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:17:39 +1100

At 07:37 AM 2/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>IRTF drafts are treated like independent submissions - there are no 
>special processing rules for them. Do we need any?

I would assert that we do. This is a replay of the same old conversation 
about publication of individual submissions, so I will not repeat all the 
content, but I believe that the IRTF is far better served by a defined 
publication process that does not simply say 'these are individual submissions'

Geoff

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:09:08 -0500

On 11/2/04 at 9:15 AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:

>I would be reluctant to confuse this publication stream with 
>individual submissions, and I think it would be useful to define a 
>clear path via the IRTF Chair (or the IRSG) from the IRTF to the RFC 
>Editor to a published document.

In among all of the other discussions we've been having about the 
future of the IRTF, one of the things (at least some of us have) 
talked about was a separate "Research" track (akin to the Standards 
track) for IRTF documents so that research folks could have some 
recognition other than "just another Informational document". 
Personally, I think this would be a good thing.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:41:13 +1100

Personally, I agree with this proposition. In my mind IRTF documents are 
much closer to the original spirit of an actual "request for comment" than 
our standards track and information documents these days.

It seems to me there are two things here that split off in different 
directions if we want to pursue this - the creation of a RFC document track 
for IRTF-sourced documents would probably be a newtrk WG consideration, as 
far as I can see. The process to follow to get IRTF outputs to the RFC 
editor directly would be something for the IAB to work through with the RFC 
Editor and the IRTF chair I would guess.

regards,

    Geoff

At 09:09 AM 2/11/2004, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>submissions, and I think it would be useful to define a clear path via 
>>the IRTF Chair (or the IRSG) from the IRTF to the RFC Editor to a 
>>published document.
>
>In among all of the other discussions we've been having about the future 
>of the IRTF, one of the things (at least some of us have) talked about was 
>a separate "Research" track (akin to the Standards track) for IRTF 
>documents so that research folks could have some recognition other than 
>"just another Informational document". Personally, I think this would be a 
>good thing.
>
>pr
>--

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:58:25 -0500

On 11/2/04 at 10:41 AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:

>Personally, I agree with this proposition. In my mind IRTF documents 
>are much closer to the original spirit of an actual "request for 
>comment" than our standards track and information documents these 
>days.
>
>directions if we want to pursue this - the creation of a RFC 
>document track for IRTF-sourced documents would probably be a newtrk 
>WG consideration, as far as I can see. The process to follow to get 
>IRTF outputs to the RFC editor directly would be something for the 
>IAB to work through with the RFC Editor and the IRTF chair I would 
>guess.

I don't see how a research track in the RFC series would require any 
action from newtrk. They're working on the IETF track of documents. I 
see no reason why we (as the sponsor/organizer of the IRTF and policy 
approvers of the RFC Editor) can't just ask the RFC Editor to make a 
new track (should we decide that that's what we and the IRTF want).

pr

---

From: "Karen R. Sollins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:52:29 -0400

I am in full agreement with the previous voices that have clarified 
the point that IRTF RFCs should be distinctively identified as part 
of the IRTF processes.  There are at least two important and distinct 
reasons.

1. These are intended to be working papers, requests for comments, 
etc.  It is important that the broad audience out the broad audience 
out there treat them differently.  Too often any RFC is read as a 
"standard".  So, not only should the name be different, but perhaps 
there should be more boilerplate text that clarifies what they are 
(not just an individual submission).

2. This set of documents represents part of the IRTF process and 
contribution.  As such, it is important to identify that, because it 
is part of the definition of the IRTF and its WGs.

			Karen

At 10:41 AM +1100 11/2/04, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>>clear path via the IRTF Chair (or the IRSG) from the IRTF to the 
>>>RFC Editor to a published document.
>>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:35:49 +0100

I think the point has been made eminently clear now that it makes sense to 
formalize and document the way the IRTF handles documents - if the IAB and 
the RG chairs don't know what the current process is, how can anyone 
else.....?

The point that I see in some need of clarification still is the approval 
process for RG draft publication - should there be some explicit IRTF 
signoff (IRTF chair, IRSG or RG chair seem some possible candidates to give 
it) and have the drafts enter the RFC Editor's queue at the same point as 
IETF drafts, or should they come straight from the RG and enter (as today) 
as individual submissions?

When we reach this stage in other process discussions, I tend to say "do we 
have a volunteer to document this approach as an I-D?" - is that an 
appropriate thing to call for here, Vern?

(see <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif> 
for the flowchart I'm thinking about)

                   Harald

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:12:18 -0500

On 4 nov 2004, at 07.35, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> The point that I see in some need of clarification still is the 
> approval process for RG draft publication - should there be some 
> explicit IRTF signoff (IRTF chair, IRSG or RG chair seem some possible 
> candidates to give it) and have the drafts enter the RFC Editor's 
> queue at the same point as IETF drafts, or should they come straight 
> from the RG and enter (as today) as individual submissions?
>
> When we reach this stage in other process discussions, I tend to say 
> "do we have a volunteer to document this approach as an I-D?" - is 
> that an appropriate thing to call for here, Vern?
>

I have been in favor of an IRTF process for documents for a while now 
and I am happy to see the discussion get as far as it has.  I am 
certainly willing to work with others in documenting such a process as 
an I-D that gets submitted after IETF week.  I would think, though that 
we should come to an agreement on the general structure of that 
proposal before any of us submit it for further review.

In terms of thinking about a procedure, it seems reasonable that there 
should be a wider review that just that by one research group.

So as a first cut at a process, how about:

- RG documents would have an RG last call.

- Each research group that intends to send documents to the RFC editor 
as IRTF documents should set up a review team (of maybe 3 individuals) 
that would need to do a detailed public review of any document before 
submission (these could be permanent groups or set up per draft).  The 
review team could work with the author/editor of the document to bring 
it up to a point where they could send the RG chair a recommendation 
regarding the document.

- After that review, it would be up to the RG chair to decide on 
whether to submit documents to an IRSG and IAB last call or to inform 
the authors that the document was being rejected at that point.

- in the case of the IRSG/IAB LC it would be up to the RG chair to 
coordinate with the document author(s)/editor to deal with any of the 
issues that came out of that LC.

- After attempting to resolve, and hopefully resolving, any issues that 
came up in the IRSG/IAB LC, the RG chair would decide on whether to 
approve the submission to the RFC editor.

- If approving, the RG chair would then send notification to the RFC 
editor, describing specifics of the edit process, e.g. names of 
reviewers, location of the reviews.

- the Document would enter the RFC editor process at the same point 
where IESG/IAB documents enter and would be demarcated by IRTF branding 
language.

Questions I still have:

- I thought of including the IESG in the IRSG/IAB LC but, since they 
are represented in the IAB by the IETF chair and IESG liaison, figured 
this would give them access to the LC.  Since the IRTF is peer to the 
IESG, I did not think it necessarily made sense to subject IRTF work to 
IESG approval.  I am assuming, though, that Standards/BCPs are still 
not in the IRTF charter and thus could not be submitted by the IRTF - 
these belong to the IESG.  This process would apply only to 
informational and Experimental RFCs.

- Would we need some exception process for submissions where the RG 
chair was the author, especially for an RG with a single chair?

comments?

a.

(note I left the IAB off this reply, since i figured the RG chairs 
should first decide on what we want to suggest)

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:55:54 -0800

Hello Avri,

I am glad we are taking this up after a lull. I hope
we do formalize a process this time. To that extent
I request Vern to proceed with this proposal unless
others speak up :-)

Some comments below.

> should be a wider review that just that by one research group.

Agree. There is _quite a bit of_ confusion in the community
about what IRTF documents mean. Even some proment folks have asked
me if there are any IRTF RFCs. Moreover, in our RG (MobOpts), folks
are keen on getting a formal review and status for their contributions.

> - RG documents would have an RG last call.

Right. However, which documents are made RG docs are
up to each RG.

> it up to a point where they could send the RG chair a recommendation

The review team is an opportunity to widen the awareness of RG work.
We could request IETF folks and-or academia.
Indeed, at the Mobopts meeting, we announced that we would proceed
with such a structure for a couple of documents.

> the authors that the document was being rejected at that point.

Check.

> issues that came out of that LC.

In Mobopts, we have been a little selective in picking which areas we
would like to shepherd. We had quite a few drafts submitted over the
year. One thing we all could consider in the interest of producing
high-quality documents within a reasonable timeframe and load (on
IRSG/IAB/RFC editor), is to arrive at an appropriate internal review
before making a doc an RG doc.

> where IESG/IAB documents enter and would be demarcated by IRTF branding

I would suggest adding a paragraph towards the end that describes the
peer review process in the eventual RFC itself.

> informational and Experimental RFCs.

We ought to ensure that IESG is informed. However, I am not sure
if we would like them formally involved in the review process except
of course that a review team picked could consist of one
or more IESG members themselves. Nor am I sure if they would like
to be formally involved :-)

> chair was the author, especially for an RG with a single chair?

hmm.. I would leave it for each chair to exercise good judgement.

Thanks,

-Rajeev

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:18 -0800

> Personally, I think this would be a good thing.

I definitely agree (again). This ("Research" track RFC)
provides us means to inform the community of a peer review
process and offer a "status" for refereed work. Quite a few folks,
especially from academia, are hesitant to bring in contributions
exactly due to this existing deficiency!

Regards,

-Rajeev