RFC 1396

The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED)

📅 published January 1993, from ietf

RFC 1396: The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED) 🎀 (part 1 of 2)

Title block tea ☕, bestie:

Stream: Network Working Group
Author: S. Crocker, aka Steve Crocker, Chair, from Trusted Information Systems, Inc. 💅
Date: January 1993 📅
Status: it gives info to the Internet community, and it does not specify an Internet standard 🧚
Obsoletes/Updates: none listed in the header 🌸

Status of this Memo ✨

okay so this memo is just here to give the Internet community some info 💖 it is not a standard, so don't go treating it like one 🙈 and distribution is unlimited, so share it with whoever 🫶

Abstract 🦋

this report is a recap of the POISED Working Group (WG), starting from the stuff that led to forming the WG and going up to the end of 1992 💜 ngl, this is basically the author's own take, especially on the "prehistory" bit 🙈 a lot of people have strong feelings about both the overall timeline and the specific events, and the author says their goal is to be as neutral as humanly possible 🫶

Background and Formation of POISED Working Group 🌈

the POISED WG came out of two storylines that were both super tied to how the Internet was growing 📈 during 1991 everyone was lowkey panicking that the IP address space was running out and the routing tables were getting way too big 💀 some kind of change to IP addressing and routing felt inevitable, and it was urgent to figure out what that change should be 🔥 the ROAD Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes 🧚 ROAD came back with a specific recommendation for the short term, but it didn't land on a long-term plan 🥲

the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then made a plan for exploring the issues more and passed those recommendations along to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 🎀 in June 1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met up and considered the IESG's recommendations ✨ the IAB felt that extra ideas were also important, especially some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP protocol 👑 the IAB shared its concerns, and boom, there was immediate controversy along two lines 😭 the technical one: what's the best way to evolve the IP protocol, and how important or useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack? 🤓 the political one: who makes decisions within the Internet community, and who chooses who makes those decisions? 👀

as tends to happen when things get heated, communication got messy between the different parties 💀 the June communication from the IAB was understood by many people as an IAB decision, or at least a sense of what the IAB would decide later 🙃 but a lot of people on the IAB, if not all of them, felt like they were trying to open up the discussion, and their memos were meant as advice, not decisions 🌸 the author thinks this miscommunication was partly because the Internet technical community had gotten so big 🧚 back when it was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day-to-day work of the technical groups ✨ but with the creation of the IESG and the area directorates, there are now two or three layers between a working group and the IAB 🫠

these matters came to a head at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting in July in Cambridge, MA 🔥 it was made clear that considering changes to the IP protocol was still open 🦋 that work kept going and is reported in the appropriate forums 💅 but it also became clear that the decision process, and the procedures for populating the IESG and IAB, needed a serious look 👑 the procedures for selecting IAB and IESG members came from the creation of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB 🌈 those procedures had been developed in early 1992 and were adopted by the ISOC at its Kobe meeting in June 🍓 so basically, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework to support the Internet community, the community was questioning its own structure and processes 😭

after the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president, called for a working group to examine the processes, especially the selection process (Attachment 1) 📣 during August the working group was formed, the author was asked to chair it, and a charter for the WG was put together (Attachment 2) 💜 (fun fact: the acronym is thanks to Erik Huizer, and it originally stood for The Process for Organization of Internet Standards and Development ✨ it got shortened to fit the space on paper and in the IETF Secretariat's database 🎀)

Deliberations: August through mid-November 💬

the POISED WG gave everyone a forum to talk about process issues, and the talking was intense 🔥 an estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks all over the world 💀 a lot of it was fragmented or focused on narrow issues 🙈 the big takeaway was the need for a well-defined process for selecting leaders, with explicit community representation in the selection process 👑 there was also a ton of discussion about the role of the IAB, like to what extent should it make decisions, and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? -- and about the relationship between the IAB and IESG 🤓

after several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and the author tried to capture the main elements of the conversation by presenting a specific proposal to reorganize the entire structure 🌸 the main elements of the proposal were:

Retention of the WG and area structure now in place within the IETF. 🌈
Replacement of the IAB and IESG by two boards, one devoted to technical management and one devoted to oversight of the process. 🧚
Well defined terms for members of both boards. 🎀
Selection by committees with input from the community. 💖

this proposal was technically radical, no cap 😭 it proposed brand-new structures to replace the existing ones, instead of proposing changes within the existing system 💅 the proposal focused all further discussion and set the stage for the fall IETF in mid-November in Washington D.C. 🍓

to be continued in part 2: the November IETF meeting and beyond 🦋✨

December ISOC meeting 🎀

okay so the Internet Society Trustees met on December 10 and 11 at CNRI in Reston, VA 💅 they were super focused on how the IAB and IETF are organized and run 👑 there was a session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST, December 10, that got broadcast over the Internet 📡 nobody knows how many people actually tuned in 🙈 but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, got spliced in separately from Australia 🦘 iconic, honestly.

at that session, I presented the POISED WG results and asked, on behalf of the IETF, that the Trustees approve the selection process described above ✨ ngl, a new charter is needed for the long run 📜 but the schedule was so compressed that there wasn't time to draft and polish one. so the Trustees were asked to approve the general direction of the IAB and IETF reorganization and give temporary approval to the selection process, so the first round of selections could move forward 🚀

the Trustees gave strong approval to the POISED WG's work and general approval to the direction 💖 one thing on their radar is the legal liability of the Internet Society for decisions the IESG might make in the future ⚖️ they made it very clear they are not trying to micromanage the IETF process, but they do feel they need to understand the legal issues and help build a charter that fits their responsibilities as Trustees 🫶

the session wrapped with everyone agreeing to stay on the current course, plus the IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees working together to draft the right charter 🌈

Future activities 🦋

okay so both the IESG and the IAB have picked the positions that need to be filled through the new selection process 🎯 as I write this, Vint Cerf has been looking for a chair for the nominations committee, and the process should move forward during January and February 🗓️ details on the nomination process will get posted to the IETF mailing list and possibly other forums. as described above, the selection process should wrap up well before the next IETF meeting, and preferably by the end of February 💀 no pressure lol.

the other open item is drafting a new charter for the IAB and IETF and getting it adopted by the ISOC 📜 that's the next order of business for the POISED WG 🔥

ATTACHMENT 1: Message from Vint Cerf to the IETF, et al. 📨

bestie, here's the actual message. first, the headers:

To: pgross@nis.ans.net
Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@NRI.Reston.VA.US, ietf@isi.edu,
        internet-society-trustees:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US,
        internet-society-members:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US,
        isoc-interest@relay.sgi.com
Subject: Request for Recommendations
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:46:48 -0400
From: vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-Id:  <9208122146.aa10744@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US>

and then the memo itself:

To:      IETF Chairman
CC:      IAB, IETF, IRTF, ISOC Trustees, and ISOC Members
From:    President, Internet Society
Subject: Request for Recommendations on IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISOC Procedures

Introduction 🌷

back in June 1992, the Internet Society Board of Trustees got a proposed charter for an Internet Architecture Board that would be created inside the Internet Society 📜 the new IAB was envisioned as being made up of the then current members of the Internet Activities Board. the IETF and IRTF functions would come under the Internet Society umbrella as elements of the newly chartered IAB. the Trustees voted to accept the proposed charter, which is in RFC 1358 ✨

then between June and July there was a LOT of discussion, both by email and at the IETF meeting in Boston, about how the IAB, IETF, and IRTF should work together under the Internet Society 💬 three points seemed especially important:

Procedures for making appointments to the Internet Architecture Board.
Procedures for resolving disagreements among the IETF, IESG, and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards.
Methods for ensuring that for any particular Internet Standard, procedures have been followed satisfactorily by all parties so that everyone with an interest has had a fair opportunity to be heard.

effective discussion of these issues needs an open venue, a chance to comment by email, and the option of face-to-face meetings 🫶 with that in mind, the IAB recommended that the best way for the Internet Community to gather recommendations for refining our existing procedures was to request an IETF Working Group 🌸

so I'm super happy to make this request of the IETF to create that WG 🎀 it would be extremely helpful to have recommendations on the three topics above by the first of December, 1992, so they can be presented at the Internet Society Board of Trustees meeting on December 10th ⭐

for point 1, the current procedures for making IAB appointments live in the IAB charter (RFC 1358) 📖 RFC 1310 describes the current process for how Internet Standards get achieved 🛠️ points (2) and (3) could be discussed using the present procedures in RFC 1310, which lists a number of open issues in an appendix 🦋

the Internet Society Trustees hope that members of the IAB, IRTF, IESG, and IETF, plus general members of the Internet Society, will take the time to share their thoughts in the proposed working group forum 💜 it's vital to the future of the Internet that these key groups work together well 🌈 and the Trustees are committed to doing everything possible to make procedures work well and to protect and grow the special spirit of the Internet Community that created and keeps the global Internet healthy and growing 💖

Vint Cerf
President
Internet Society

Process for Organization of Internet Standards (poised) 🌸

Charter 📜

Chair(s):
     Steve Crocker  <crocker@tis.com>

Mailing lists:
     General Discussion:poised@nri.reston.va.us
     To Subscribe:      poised-request@nri.reston.va.us
     Archive:           nri.reston.va.us:~/poised/current

Description of Working Group 💅

the goal of this working group is to examine the Internet standards process and the responsibilities of the IAB, with attention to the relationship between the IAB and IETF/IESG 👑

the need for this WG came up during discussions at the July 1992 IETF, which led to a request from the Internet Society president to form it ✨

the WG will consider the following matters:

Procedures for making appointments to the Internet Architecture Board.
Procedures for resolving disagreements among IETF, IESG and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards.
Methods for assuring that for any particular Internet Standard, procedures have been followed satisfactorily by all parties so that everyone with an interest has had a fair opportunity to be heard.

the WG will start by reviewing the procedures for making IAB appointments as documented in RFC 1358, plus the standards-making process documented in RFC 1310 📚

the WG aims to issue a final report in time for IESG consideration and publication as an RFC before the ISOC Board of Trustees meeting in December 1992 ⏰ because the timescale is so compressed, the WG will do most of its deliberations by electronic mail on the POISED WG mailing list 💌 there will also be a preliminary report and discussions at the November 1992 IETF meeting in Washington, DC 🌆

this is a normal IETF WG, i.e. the mailing list and all discussions will be completely open 🌈

Goals and Milestones 🎯

Sep 92 Gather initial set of issues and write a preliminary
       report.

Oct 92 Post as an Internet Draft the initial recommendations to
       the ISOC Board.

Nov 92 Open discussion and presentation of the work of the POISED
       Working Group at Washington D.C. IETF meeting.

Dec 92 Submit the recommendations document to the IESG for posting
       as an Informational RFC.  This document will be
       subsequently transmitted to the ISOC Board.

Security Considerations 🔒

heads up, bestie: security issues are not discussed in this memo. 💀

Author's Address 🖋️

Stephen D. Crocker
Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
3060 Washington Road
Glenwood, MD 21738

Phone: (301) 854-6889

Email: crocker@TIS.COM

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc1396 1993-01
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-15: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms