[Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs
Rajeev Koodli <rajeev@iprg.nokia.com> Thu, 23 February 2006 01:10 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC4zi-0007Lj-LQ; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:10:10 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC4zh-0007LV-6I for mobopts@irtf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:10:09 -0500
Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC4zg-0004rU-Mu for mobopts@irtf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:10:09 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id k1N0WBN29208 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:32:11 -0800
X-mProtect: <200602230032> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from mvdhcp14188.americas.nokia.com (172.18.141.88, claiming to be "[127.0.0.1]") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdpIx1YY; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:32:09 PST
Message-ID: <43FD0B61.4040207@iprg.nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:09:53 -0800
From: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev@iprg.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6
Subject: [Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Folks, after considerable deliberation, we have a new process which I believe will bring a much-needed formal peer review process for RG documents. I feel this is very good for us, personally having brought it up many a time earlier, including during the IAB review of MobOpts in Paris. So, I am looking forward to it. Please see the process description below. I hope it is encouraging to all! Regards, -Rajeev ps: to begin with, I will act as the shepherd (see below). ............................................................... - An RG decides to publish a document using the IRTF publication track. The RG performs a review for editorial and technical content. The document should have a statement in the abstract identifying the document as the product of the RG and a paragraph in the first section describing the level of support for the document (e.g., "this document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG", "the views in this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published") and the breadth of review for the document. I.e., was this document read by all the active contributors, 3 people, or folks who are not "in" the RG but are expert in the area? It should also be very clear throughout the document that it is not an IETF product and is not a standard. If an experimental protocol is described appropriate caveats need to be present. - Documents should have a shepherd. This is a relatively new concept developed in the IETF to ensure that issues raised in the review and publication process (e.g., by the IESG and RFC Editor) are responded to in a timely manner. The IETF shepherding process is described in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt and should be adapted to the IRTF publication process as some items in the draft will not apply. - The sponsoring RG chair brings the document to the IRSG for publication. The expectation is that the RG chair has already reviewed the draft thoroughly and considers it of publishable quality editorially and technically. The RG should be copied on the mail message requesting IRSG review. - A (firm) eight-week IRSG review period follows after which a poll is taken. Reviews should be similar to that for a conference paper. Votes can be: = 'ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably detailed review = 'not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read, reasonably detailed review, and actionable comments. = 'no objection' -- I don't object if this document goes forward; I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great expertise in the area. = 'request more time to review' -- a commitment to to provide a thorough review in a specified period of time. Reviews should be written to be public. In particular, they should be sent to the submitted RG mailing list. (We may need a tracker of some sort to collect reviews.) At least two other IRSG members (besides the one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to publish' for the document to move forward. Any vote of 'not ready to publish' will hold a documents progress until the comments are addressed. The IRTF chair may choose to override 'not ready to publish' holds that, in the opinion of the chair, have received an adequate response. - The document is submitted to the RFC Editor who does not perform an ISR review. The RFC Editor sends it to the IESG for an RFC3932 review. There are several reasons why the IESG may block a document, described in RFC3932 section 4. (The document shepherd should be responsible for checking the IETF datatracker for IESG blocking and non-blocking comments and forward them to the RG.) - Rather than the disclaimers found in RFC3932, the IESG will instruct the RFC Editor to add the following disclaimer: "This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force and is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results may not be suitable for deployment." For documents that specify a protocol or other technology, and that have been considered in the IETF at one time: "This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force. The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. However, this is not an IETF document is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results may not be suitable for deployment." (These disclaimers will require approval by the IESG.) _______________________________________________ Mobopts mailing list Mobopts@irtf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
- [Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs Rajeev Koodli
- [Mobopts] Randomness from Wi-Fi background noise Pars Mutaf
- Re: [Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs James Kempf
- Re: [Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs Greg Daley
- [Fwd: Re: [Mobopts] New IRTF process for RG RFCs] Rajeev Koodli