RFC 1640

RFC 1640 🎀 The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED)

okay bestie, RFC 1640 is giving main character history 🦋. It's by S. Crocker at TIS 💅, it's in the Informational category, and it's dated June 1994 📅. Its header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates. This is the 🧩 part 1 of 2 🧩.

Status of This Memo ✨

so this memo gives information to the Internet community 🫶. It does NOT specify an Internet standard of any kind, and distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈.

Abstract 🌸

this report was originally prepared in January 1993 and sums up the POISED WG, from the events leading up to the WG forming all the way to the end of 1992. real talk, this synopsis is the author's own perception, especially for the "prehistory" period 🙈. quite a few people hold strong views on both the overall sequence and the specific events, so the goal here is to be as neutral as possible 💜.

Background and Formation of POISED Working Group 🧚

the POISED WG came out of two sequences of activity, both super tied to the Internet's growth 🌱. during 1991 people were really worried that the IP address space was getting depleted and the routing tables were getting way too big 😭. some change to IP addressing and routing seemed inevitable, so it got urgent to explore and pick what those changes 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 reach a conclusion on a long term plan.

the IESG then came up with a plan of action for exploring the issues further and forwarded these recommendations to the IAB 📨. in June 1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met and considered the IESG's recommendations. after considering them, the IAB felt that additional ideas were also important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP protocol. the IAB communicated its concerns, and there was immediate controversy along two dimensions 💥. one dimension was technical: What is the best course for evolving the IP protocol? How important or useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack? the other dimension was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community? Who chooses who makes these decisions?

as often happens during periods of conflict, communication suffered among the several parties 💔. the June communication from the IAB was understood by many as an IAB decision or, equivalently, as a sense of the decisions the IAB would make in the future. in contrast, many if not all on the IAB felt they were trying to open up the discussion, and their memos were meant as advice and not decisions. from the author's perspective, this kind of miscommunication was partly due to how big the Internet technical community had gotten. when the community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day to day workings of the technical groups. with the creation of the IESG and area directorates, there are now two or three layers between a working group and the IAB 🪜.

these matters came to a head during the IETF meeting in July in Cambridge, MA 🔥. it was made clear that the consideration of changes to the IP protocol remained open, and work on that topic has proceeded and is reported in the appropriate forums. however, it became clear that it was necessary to examine the decision process and the procedures for populating the IESG and IAB. with respect to the procedures for selecting IAB and IESG members, the procedures in place derived from the creation of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB. these procedures had been developed during the early part of 1992 and had been adopted by the ISOC during its meeting in Kobe in June. so, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework for supporting the Internet community, the community was questioning its structure and processes 🤯.

following the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president, called for the formation of a working group to examine the processes and particularly the selection process (Attachment 1). during August, the working group was formed, I was asked to chair it, and a charter for the WG was formulated (Attachment 2). (The acronym is due to Erik Huizer and originally stood for The Process for Organization of Internet Standards and Development. It was shortened to fit into the space available on paper and in the IETF Secretariat's database.) 📎

Deliberations: August through mid-November 🗳️

the formation of the POISED WG gave everyone a forum for discussing process issues. an estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks all over the world 💾. a lot of this discussion was fragmented or focused on narrow issues. the salient point that emerged was the need for a well defined process for selecting leaders, with explicit community representation in the selection process. there was also substantial discussion of the role of the IAB -- to what extent should it make decisions and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? -- and the relationship between the IAB and IESG.

after several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and I attempted to capture the main elements of the discussion by presenting a specific proposal for the reorganization of 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 in the sense that it proposed new structures to replace existing structures 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. 🏛️

November IETF meeting 🍂

by virtue of the intensity of interest throughout the community, the POISED WG was one of the focal points of the IETF meeting. the schedule included a plenary session Tuesday morning to present the current state of the POISED WG discussions, a formal POISED WG session Tuesday afternoon, and an open IESG meeting Thursday evening devoted to the POISED issues. the formal schedule was only the tip of the iceberg 🧊. numerous meetings took place over breakfast, lunch and dinner, in the halls, and off in the corners. the more active participants probably had a dozen or more separate meetings on this over the three most active days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

amidst all this frenetic activity, remarkable progress occurred at two key points. at the Tuesday afternoon POISED WG meeting, Lyman Chapin, IAB chair, Phill Gross, IETF chair and IAB member, and other IAB members proposed changes within the existing IAB/IESG structure which converged with the process management elements of the Malamud-Crocker proposal. the key point was that all processing of standards actions, including the final decision to advance a specification along the standards track, would be made by the IESG. this change in the process shortens the decision cycle and brings it a step closer to the working group. convergence on this key point obviated a radical proposal and signaled the building of a consensus on how the standards process should evolve. over the next two days, attention then turned to the selection process.

as indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community that the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of the community. a natural mechanism for doing this is through formal voting. however, a formal voting process requires formal delineation of who's enfranchised. one of the strengths of the IETF is there isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition of decision through votes. decisions are generally reached by consensus with mediation by leaders when necessary 🤝.

various formulas were considered, and the one that emerged was that IAB and IESG members would be selected by a nomination and recruiting committee. the committee is to consist of seven members from the community, with non-voting representatives from the IAB and IESG and a non-voting chair provided by the ISOC. the seven members are to be volunteers, with selection by lot if there are more than seven volunteers. the only requirement for volunteers is they must have attended two IETF meetings. this requirement is designed to ensure the nomination committee has some familiarity with the Internet community and the standards process 🎟️.

IAB and IESG members are to serve two years. half of each body is to have terms starting in odd years, and half is to have terms starting in even years. selections to the IESG have to be ratified by the IAB, and selections to the IAB had to be ratified by the ISOC. in the event that the nomination committee is unable to reach a consensus on a single candidate for each position, it may forward multiple nominations to the ratifying body, and the ratifying body will select the candidate 🗳️.

in addition to this selection process, a recall mechanism was outlined using a similar scheme. the ISOC is to supply an ombudsman who will field complaints after all oversight processes have been exhausted. if the ombudsman is unable to resolve a complaint after a cooling off period, a recall committee, selected at random among volunteering community members, will consider the matter. a two thirds vote by the committee is necessary to remove someone 🧊.

this proposal was formulated and circulated during Wednesday and Thursday, and presented at the IESG open plenary. in contrast to the extraordinarily contentious open IESG meeting in Cambridge, this meeting was characterized by a strenuous effort by numerous people, representing diverse points of view, to reach consensus on this proposal, and the meeting ended with a distinct decision to proceed on this basis. given the strong consensus that emerged at that meeting, the group decided to implement the selection process by the next IETF meeting, with the new IESG and IAB members to begin their terms at the termination of the IETF meeting in March. look at them all working it out together 🥹

on Friday, the IAB and IESG met jointly to determine what to do next. both groups agreed to implement the change in processing standards actions quickly and cooperatively, and to identify the positions which are open for selection. within a couple of weeks, the IAB finished processing the standards actions in its queue, and IESG began to handle standards actions on its own 🚀.

December ISOC meeting 💖

Okay so the Internet Society Trustees met on December 10 and 11 at CNRI in Reston, VA 🧚. Their big focus was how the IAB and IETF are run and organized 💅. A session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST on December 10 was broadcast over the Internet. Nobody knows how many people tuned in, but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, got spliced in separately from Australia 🦋. Iconic.

At that session, I presented the results of the POISED WG's deliberations and asked the Trustees, on behalf of the IETF, to approve the selection process described above ✨. Long term, we need a brand new charter. 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 to give temporary approval to the selection process so the first round of selections could move forward 🌈.

The Trustees gave the POISED WG a big thumbs up 👑 and generally approved where the effort is heading. One thing they're concerned about is the Internet Society's legal liability for decisions the IESG might make down the road 🙈. They made it clear they aren't trying to micromanage the IETF process. They do feel, though, that they need to understand the legal issues and help build a charter that fits their responsibilities as Trustees 💜.

The session wrapped up with everyone agreeing to stay on the current course. The IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees will work together to draft the appropriate charter 🫶.

Future activities

Both the IESG and the IAB have picked the positions that need to be filled through the new selection process 🍓. While I'm writing this, Vint Cerf has been looking for a chair for the nominations committee, and the process should move forward during January and February 🌸. Details about the nomination process will be posted on the IETF mailing list and possibly other forums. As described above, the selection process should be complete well before the next IETF meeting, and preferably by the end of February 💅.

The other open item is drafting a new charter for the IAB and IETF and getting the ISOC to adopt it. That's the next order of business for the POISED WG ⭐.

---

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

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>

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 received a proposed charter for an Internet Architecture Board to be created within the Internet Society 🌸. The new IAB was going to be made up of the then-current members of the Internet Activities Board. The IETF and IRTF would be brought under the Internet Society umbrella as parts of the newly chartered IAB. The Trustees voted to accept that proposed charter, which is contained in RFC 1358 ✨.

From June to July, there was a ton 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:

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

Talking these through properly takes an open venue, a chance to comment by email, and the option of meeting face-to-face 💖. So the IAB recommended that the best way to gather recommendations for refining our existing procedures is to request that an IETF Working Group be formed. I'm super happy to make that request of the IETF 🦋.

I'd love to have recommendations on those three topics 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 IAB appointments are in the IAB charter (RFC 1358). RFC 1310 describes the current process for achieving Internet Standards 🧚. Points (2) and (3) could be discussed using the present procedures described 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, as well as general members of the Internet Society, will 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 😭. The Trustees are committed to doing everything possible to make procedures work well, and to preserve and grow the special spirit of the Internet Community that created and maintains the health and growth of the global Internet 🌈.

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 look at the Internet standards process and the responsibilities of the IAB, paying special attention to how the IAB relates to the IETF and IESG 🦋.

The need for this group 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 these matters:

1. Procedures for making appointments to the Internet Architecture Board.
2. Procedures for resolving disagreements among IETF, IESG and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards.
3. Methods for assuring that, for any particular Internet Standard, all parties have followed the procedures satisfactorily, 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, and by reviewing 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 Trustee's meeting in December 1992 ⭐. Because the timescale is so compressed, the WG will do most of its deliberations over 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, so the mailing list and all discussions are 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

Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 💀 Dramatic, I know, but that's what it says.

Author's Address

Steve Crocker
Trusted Inforamtion Systems, Inc.
3060 Washington Road
Glenwood, MD 21738

Phone: (301) 854-6889
EMail: crocker@TIS.COM