Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

Rajeev Koodli <> Fri, 12 November 2004 19:05 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02545; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:05:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSgkz-0008EN-AF; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:06:49 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CSgcK-0002K7-EN; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:57:52 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CSgbA-0001hg-7X for; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:56:40 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01786 for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:56:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSgca-000807-FF for; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:58:09 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id iACISF927314; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:28:15 -0800
X-mProtect: <200411121828> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from ( by smtpdIN4LXu; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:28:14 PST
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA51822; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:55:54 -0800
From: Rajeev Koodli <>
Organization: Nokia Research Center
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <> <> <> <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]> <> <p0610052cbdad78698a29@[]> <B615900698C87ABA35D70528@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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. wrote:

> In terms of thinking about a procedure, it seems reasonable that there
> 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.

> So as a first cut at a process, how about:
> - RG documents would have an RG last call.

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

> - 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.

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.

> - 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.

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.

> - 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.

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

> 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.

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 :-)

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

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



> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> Rgchairs mailing list

Rgchairs mailing list