newtrk-1 newtrk New IETF Standards Track Discussion BOF • Chair: Scott Bradner <[email protected]> • Agenda 1/ description of current IETF Standards Track 2/ observations from problem working group 3/ what other SDOs do 4/ proposals for alternate standards track processes 5/ what would define success in a revised IETF Standards track 6/ open discussion
37
Embed
Newtrk-1 newtrk New IETF Standards Track Discussion BOF Chair: Scott Bradner Agenda 1/ description of current IETF Standards Track 2/ observations from.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
both the long list of problems and the root cause issues that we have derived from them are problems that are believed to exist by a significant constituency [in the IETF]
newtrk-7
Root Cause #4(in no particular order)
Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized
– Successful part of InternetSuccessful part of Internet
– Community adoption and use
Working Group Snapshot
– Formal, working groupworking group “synchronization”, eg., go test go test the specthe spec
– Working group consensus on version of Internet-DraftInternet-Draft
– No IETF-level status
– IESG opportunity to comment
– 6 month timeout
newtrk-24
Ted Hardie
(very well disguised as Leslie Daigle)
newtrk-25
John Loughney
newtrk-26
Standards, What Standards?
• The IETF has produced a good body of work.– 3655 RFCs at last count– 63 STDs
• People seem to be using our standards.• But, there are problems.• http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html
– Published RFCs never change. Although every published RFC has been submitted to careful proof reading by the RFC Editor and the author(s), errors do sometimes go undetected. As a service to the readers of RFCs, this page contains a list of technical and editorial errors that have been reported to the RFC Editor and verified by the authors or the IESG.
newtrk-27
More Problems
• Relatively few specifications are now progressed beyond Proposed Standard (PS)
• There is no formal bug reporting or tracking system in place for IETF specifications.
• Periodic review of protocols are not being carried out.
• No individual or body is given the task of 'maintaining' a specification.
newtrk-28
Solutions?
• Improved errata pages with hyperlinks?
• Maintanence teams?
• Early assignment of STD numbers?
• Enhanced STD numbers?
newtrk-29
Next Steps
• Incorporate more discussions of solutions.
• Solicit input for which possible solutions seem reasonable.
• remember IPR “feature” currently in Draft Standard step
newtrk-33
Defining Success
• what would define success in a revised IETF Standards track– more advancement (assuming N>1-stage)– fewer ID-based products– better WG/participant understanding– less press stories saying “IETF standard” when
referring to IDs– other?
newtrk-34
Discussion
newtrk-35
Discussion
• is change needed?
• designated ID stage?
• stage requiring multiple implementations?
• N=? (N-stage)
• maintaining standards
• IPR hook
• other?
newtrk-36
Conclusions
• Scott to say if he thinks there is consensus on specific things– is change needed?– designated ID stage?– stage requiring multiple implementations?– N=? (N-stage)– maintaining standards– IPR hook– other
newtrk-37
Future Steps
• to WG or not to WG?– how close to consensus are we?– is mailing list discussion enough?