Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF Wed, 10 November 2004 13:19 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05441; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRsP0-0001jz-Ol; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:20:46 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRsKL-0006eo-J7; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:15:57 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRsH1-0006CP-4n for; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:12:31 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04733 for <>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:12:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] ident=mailnull) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRsHy-0001XM-Im for; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:13:30 -0500
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1CRsGz-000LKd-Fm; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:12:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <B615900698C87ABA35D70528@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <> <> <> <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]> <> <p0610052cbdad78698a29@[]> <B615900698C87ABA35D70528@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:12:18 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 

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?



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

Rgchairs mailing list