As per Relevance of the word technical, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group E.
Request for Comments: 2031 SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum
Category: Informational October 1996
IETF-ISOC
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
this memo is unlimited
This memo summarises the issues on IETF - ISOC relationships as
have been discussed by the Poised Working Group. The purpose of
document is to gauge consensus on these issues. And to allow
discussions where necessary
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the body that
responsible for the development and maintenance of the
Standards. Traditionally the IETF is a volunteer organization.
driving force is dedicated high quality engineers from all over
world. In a structure of working groups these engineers
ideas and experience, and through discussion (both by e-mail and
to face) they strive to get rough consensus. The engineers then
on building running code to put the consensus to the test and
it into an Internet Standard
The growth of the Internet has also led to a growth of the IETF.
and more people, organizations and companies rely on
Standards. The growth of responsibility as well as amount
participants has forced the IETF to more and more structure
processes. Non technical issues, such as legal issues, liaison
etc., have become an undesirable but a seemingly unavoidable part
the IETF organization. To address these issues the IETF
the Poised95 working group. The working group is now trying
structure and document the IETF processes in such a way as to
the maximum flexibility and freedom for the engineers in the IETF
work in the way the IETF has always been most successful, and
honour the IETF credo: "Rough consensus and running code".
One of the more obvious recommendations that came out of the
WG was to move all non technical issues that can be moved safely,
another related organization. The Poised WG finds that the
Huizer Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2031 IETF-ISOC Relationship October 1996
Society (ISOC) is the obvious choice for this task. A straw poll
the open plenary session of the IETF in december 1995 in
clearly confirmed this notion
However, since this is an issue that is crucial to the functioning
the IETF as a whole it is necessary to get a broad (rather than
rough) consensus on this issue. At the same time it is necessary
clearly indicate the extend of the relationship between the IETF
ISOC. So both the IETF participants and the ISOC board of
get a clear picture on the division of responsibilities
The details of the Poised WG recommendations on the IETF -
relationships can be found in the appropriate places in a series
Poised documents in progress: - The IETF Standards Process - The
organizational structure - The IETF charter - The Nomcom procedures -
The Appeals
The current document is meant to summarize the Poised
recommendations in order to gauge the consensus. This document
not have, and is not intended to get, a formal status. The
and upcoming working documents of the Poised WG will become
formal documents. Readers who are interested in the nitty
details are referred to these working documents of the Poised WG
Main boundary
The IETF remains responsible for the development and quality of
Internet Standards. The ISOC will aid the IETF by facilitating
and organizational issues as described below. Apart from the
described below, the IETF and ISOC acknowledge that the ISOC has
influence whatsoever on the Internet Standards process, the
Standards or their technical content
All subgroups in the IETF and ISOC that have an official role in
standards process should be either
- open to anyone (like Working Groups);
- have a well documented restricted membership in which
voting members are elected or nominated through an open process
The latter means that within the IETF the IAB and the IESG need to
formed through a nomination process that is acceptable to the
community and that gives all IETF participants an equal chance to
candidate for a position in either of these bodies. For the ISOC
means that the Board of Trustees should be elected by the
individual membership, where all individual members have an
vote and all individual members have an equal opportunity to stand
a candidate for a position on the Board of Trustees
Huizer Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2031 IETF-ISOC Relationship October 1996
ISOC will, like the IETF use public discussion and consensus
processes when it wants to develop new policies or regulations
may influence the role of ISOC in the Internet or the
Technical work. ISOC will always put work related to
standards, Internet technical issues or Internet operations up
discussion in the IETF through the IETF Internet-drafts
process
The legal
To avoid the fact that the IETF has to construct its own
structure to protect the standards and the standards process,
should provide a legal umbrella. The legal umbrella will at
cover
- legal insurance for all IETF officers (IAB, IESG, Nomcom and
chairs);
- legal protection of the RFC series of documents; In such a
that these documents can be freely (i.e. no
financially or otherwise) distributed, copied etc. but
be altered or misused. And that the right to change the
lies with the IETF
- legal protection in case of Intellectual property rights
over Internet Standards or parts thereof
The standards process
ISOC will assist the standards process
- appointing the nomcom
- approving IAB
- reviewing and approving the documents that describe the
process (i.e. the formal Poised documents).
- acting as the last resort in the appeals
Security
By involving ISOC into specific parts of the Standards process,
IETF has no longer absolute control. It can be argued that this is
breach of security. It is therefore necessary to make sure that
ISOC involvement is restricted to well defined and understood parts
at well defined and understood boundary conditions. The Poised
attempts to define these, and they are summarised in this document
There are three alternatives
- Do nothing and ignore the increasing responsibility and growth;
risk here is that the IETF either becomes insignificant, or will
suffocated by US law suits
Huizer Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2031 IETF-ISOC Relationship October 1996
- The IETF does everything itself; this keeps the IETf in control
but it would distract enormously from the technical work the
is trying to get done
- The IETF finds another organization than ISOC to take on the
described above. But why would another organization be better
ISOC
All in all a certain risk seems unavoidable, and a relationship
ISOC, under the restrictions and boundary conditions as have
described above, seems more like an opportunity for the IETF
like a risk
Acknowledgement and
The author is chair of the Poised 95 WG. The author has tried
summarise e-mail and face to face discussions in the WG. All the
ideas in this paper are the result of the WG, all the mistakes
errors are probably due to the author or his lack of command of
American language as well as the American legal system
The author is a member of the Internet Society
Author's
Erik
SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum
P.O. Box 19115
3501 DC
The
Tel: +31 302 305 305
Fax: +31 302 305 329
E-mail: Erik.Huizer@sec.
Huizer Informational [Page 4]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
