RFC 3710

RFC 3710: An IESG charter 💖

Written by H. Alvestrand of Cisco Systems, as part of the Network Working Group. Category: Informational. Dated February 2004. The title block has no Obsoletes or Updates entries.

Status of This Memo ✨

This memo is just here to share info with the Internet community 🌈 It is NOT an Internet standard of any kind. Anyone can distribute it, no limits!

Copyright Notice 🎀

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 💅

Abstract 🦋

Okay so this memo is a charter for the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is a management function of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The goal is to write down what the IESG's charter looks like as it's currently understood 📝

1. Introduction 🌸

1.1. The Role of the IESG 👑

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the group in charge of running the IETF day to day, and making sure the work the IETF produces is high quality 💯

The IESG charters and terminates working groups, picks their chairs, keeps an eye on their progress, and coordinates things between them. It does technical review and approval for working group documents and candidates for the IETF standards track, and it reviews other candidates for publication in the RFC series. It also handles IETF logistics, like running the Internet-Draft document series and the IETF meeting event 🧚

1.2. Historic Note 🍓

Lowkey, the IESG's role in the IETF management structure has stayed pretty much the same since 1993, which is when the big "POISED" process changes happened. Those changes are written up in RFC 1602 [5]. (The old process was documented in RFC 1310 [4]. RFC 1602 was later updated by RFC 1871 [7] and obsoleted by RFC 2026 [1].)

Some of the functions were also defined in RFC 1603 [6], Working Group Guidelines, which was later obsoleted by RFC 2418 [2] 📚

As the community has grown and the IESG has gathered experience, the ways the IESG tackles its tasks have changed a lot, but the tasks themselves have stayed pretty constant ✨

This document describes the tasks assigned to the IESG. It does not try to explain in detail the procedures the IESG uses to get those tasks done. That stuff lives elsewhere, so check the IESG's Web pages on the IETF Website for more information [9] 🔍

At this time (spring 2003), the IETF's structure is being reevaluated, and the result will likely include changes to the IESG's role. So this document was written as a "documentation of existing practice," not as IETF consensus on what the IESG should do 🙈

This document is published as an Informational RFC, detailing the current operations of the IESG. It does not claim to represent IETF consensus that this is the right set of instructions for the IESG 💜

2. The Composition of the IESG 🫶

The IESG has the following members:

• The IETF Chair, who also acts as the General Area Director when this area is active
• The Area Directors (ADs) for the IETF Areas
• The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Chair and the IETF Executive Director, as ex-officio members of the IESG

The IETF Chair and the Area Directors are selected by the IETF NomCom according to the procedures of BCP 10 [3] (Nomcom procedures) 🎀

The IETF Executive Director is the person in charge of running the IETF Secretariat 💅

The IESG also has liaisons. They're members of the IESG mailing list and may attend all IESG meetings. Liaison positions exist to make the IETF's work easier by speeding up communication with other entities involved in the IETF process, and the IESG decides which positions to have 🦋

The liaisons get selected by the bodies they represent. At the time of writing, the liaisons present represent the following bodies:

• The RFC Editor
• The IANA
• The IAB

In addition, members of the IETF Secretariat are subscribed to the mailing list and attend IESG meetings as needed to provide support 🌈

IESG decisions are made by the IETF Chair and the Area Directors. All IESG members can take part in the IESG's discussions 💖

3. Procedural Issues 🧚

While the IESG is generally free to set its own procedures, some parts of those procedures are properly part of its charter. Those parts are given here ✨

3.1. Decision Making 👑

The IESG tries to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity can't be achieved, the chair may run informal polls to figure out consensus. There's no general rule on how the IESG takes votes. If this ever became necessary, the same rule the IAB uses would likely apply: decisions may be taken if at least two thirds of the members concur and there are no more than two dissents 🔥

For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the Area Directors get counted 💅

The IESG may decide that other procedures for reaching a decision are appropriate under specific conditions. Those other procedures may include:

• Assertions of IETF consensus, such as when evaluating a standards action. Here, in addition to the technical quality of the specification, the IESG has to evaluate the community opinion about the specification's subject matter. This has to happen with due notice and opportunity for community feedback 🫶
• IESG actions in areas where the IESG has the authority to take action. This doesn't need special rules 🌸
• AD actions taken with the advice and consent of the IESG. The IESG is expected to be kept informed and gives comment, but the authority to act is delegated to the AD 🦋
• AD action: cases where an AD can take independent action without needing to consult the IESG first 🍓

The IESG may reach decisions by face to face meeting, teleconferencing, Internet communication, or any combination of the above 🌈

3.2. Openness and Confidentiality 🔍

The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the Internet, and holds an open meeting at every IETF meeting. It publishes more detailed documentation of decisions as RFCs, Internet Drafts, or messages to the IETF-announce mailing list, with copies kept on the IETF website when appropriate 📢

The IESG also has private group discussions, using any means of its choice, including email. Records of those discussions are not required to be made public. This is believed to be vital for a frank exchange of viewpoints and worries, letting people speak out freely on topics known to be controversial, and letting people change their minds based on arguments presented to them. Decisions and their justification are a matter of public record 💜

However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential. The chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as inappropriate for the particular discussion 🙈

The chair may also exclude members and liaisons who have a serious conflict of interest on an issue (although this has never been enacted). Members can also choose to recuse themselves from discussion of an issue, or refrain from participating in a particular ballot, if they feel it's appropriate 🫶

4. The IESG Role in Working Group Management 👑

The IESG is in charge of managing the working group process. While managing a working group is assigned to the working group chairs, the IESG is in charge of the processes that go beyond the working group chair's role. Most of these functions are delegated by the IESG to a single Area Director, the "responsible Area Director" for the group 💅

4.1. Working Group Creation 🌸

The formation of working groups is described in BCP 25 [2], section 2. This document doesn't repeat that text, but it gives additional details of IESG actions 📚

A Working Group (WG) may be requested by members of the IETF community, who address the request to an AD they feel is the appropriate AD for the task. Or the formation can be initiated by an AD. The IESG may assign the prospective working group to another AD and/or Area if the IESG thinks that's best 🦋

The AD is responsible for making sure that a working group being chartered fulfills the criteria for WG formation given in BCP 25. The charter is the result of a negotiation between the AD and the community of interest, with review and advice from the rest of the IESG and the IAB 🔥

The AD, with the advice of the IESG, is also responsible for selecting chairs for the working group that the AD thinks will be up to the task 🧚

All charters for proposed working groups are announced to the community at large when the IESG thinks the charter is ready for review, but before the IESG's final decision on chartering the WG. The final decision to charter a WG is an IESG decision 🌈

The Birds of a Feather (BOF) procedure described in BCP 25 [2], section 2.4 also requires approval from the relevant AD (the one who got the request, or the AD that the IESG thinks is the right AD to manage the task). A BOF is not required to start a working group, and a BOF may be held without the purpose of creating a working group. BOFs are also often discussed with the IESG and IAB ✨

4.2. Working Group Management 💖

The role of the Area Director in WG management is described in BCP 25 [2], section 6.7 🎀

Managing a WG is divided between the WG Chair(s) and the AD 🫶

A WG chair has to manage the working group "from the inside," dealing with individuals, drafts, proposals, meetings, and email lists. The chair has full power and responsibility to do that 💅

An AD manages a WG "from the outside," dealing with charters, chairs, cross-WG and cross-area relationships, and so on 🦋

The AD is responsible for making sure the working groups stay focused on the charter tasks, make forward progress, are coordinated with the rest of the area, and are coordinated with the rest of the IETF. The ADs help each other maintain cross-area coordination 🌸

In a well functioning working group, the main responsibility for these things rests with the chairs. The AD will normally be able to concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work 🍓

When a WG finds that it's essential that work gets done which isn't on its charter, the AD, consulting with the rest of the IESG as required, is responsible for figuring out whether to add it to their charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone outside the WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG 🧚

Substantive changes to the body of a WG's charter require the same type of process as chartering. See BCP 25 [2], section 5 📚

The Area Director is also responsible for picking and, when necessary, replacing working group chairs. This is done in consultation with the IESG, but the decision is made by the responsible AD 👑

4.3. Working Group Termination 🔥

Terminating a WG is a decision of the responsible AD 💅

A working group may be shut down when its work is complete, or when the AD concludes that letting the working group continue its work no longer contributes to the IETF's progress 🌈

The decision to terminate a working group is announced, and the reason for termination is given 🫶

5. The IESG Role in Document Review ✨

Okay bestie, the IESG has to make sure documents are actually good enough to become RFCs 💅. That means they describe their topic well and there are no open engineering problems hiding in them before publication. How intense the review gets depends on what status the document is going for and how important it is 🔥.

When the same problems or fixes keep popping up, the IESG can publish documents explaining them and how to dodge them, like "IANA considerations" (BCP 26 [8]), or put up web pages with common guidelines 🧚.

Rules are the stuff the community is expected to follow 📜. Those get decided through IETF consensus and usually get published as BCP RFCs 🎀.

Softer, more ephemeral guidance that isn't really normative is decided by the IESG and posted on the IESG's Web pages 🌸.

5.1. Working Group Documents

This role is described in BCP 25 [2], section 7.5 and 8, and BCP 9 [1], section 6 🦋. The IESG's job here is review and approval, no cap 💖.

5.2. Non-Working Group Documents

5.2.1. Standards-Track Documents

This one covers Proposed, Draft, Standard and BCP processing, and it's described in BCP 9 [1], section 6 ✨. These documents get submitted to the IESG and then assigned to a relevant AD 🫶. The IESG has to figure out:

• Whether or not the specification is appropriate for the standards track 💜
• Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more existing WGs 🌈
• Whether or not the quality of the specification is adequate ⭐

The IESG will either approve or disapprove publishing the document on the standards track 👑. No document can get onto the standards track without IESG approval, so no shortcuts, periodt 💅.

The IESG can also decide that a document submitted for standards-track publication should come out as Experimental or Informational instead 🍓. It can also decide that something submitted for Proposed standard should be published as a BCP, or the other way around 🦋.

5.2.2. Informational and Experimental Documents

These usually get submitted to the RFC Editor following BCP 9 [1], section 4.2.3 and BCP 25 [2], section 8 🌸. The IESG is asked to look over everything sent this way for conflicts with the IETF standards process or with work already happening in the IETF community 🔥. This is a tweak to the BCP 9 [1] procedure, and it's documented in BCP 25 [2], section 8 💖.

The IESG can recommend publishing the document as-is ✨. It can ask for a working group to review it 🧚. It can recommend publishing with an IESG note pointing out issues like conflict with the IETF standards process 🎀. Or it can recommend that the document not get published at all 💀.

If the document gets sent to a WG, the WG can recommend adopting it as a WG document 🌈. It can also recommend publishing it (maybe with comments) or ask the IESG to tell the RFC Editor not to publish it 🙈. The responsible AD for that WG is in charge of getting the WG to respond in a timely manner ⭐.

An AD can also, in consultation with the author, put an individual's document straight in front of the IESG without going through the RFC Editor first 👑. From there it gets handled the same way as an Informational or Experimental document coming from a working group 🫶.

5.3. IESG Review Procedures

The IESG defines its own review procedures 💅. It's responsible for running the process in a timely manner and communicating clearly along the way 🌸.

For every document, the IESG assigns one specific AD to shepherd it 🦋. That AD will normally review the document and maybe ask for revisions to fix obvious problems before the whole IESG considers it for publication ✨.

The IESG has web pages as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org) 🧚. The current procedure details and the way to find the responsible AD for any document are published there 💜.

6. The IESG Role in Area Management

The IETF splits its work into a bunch of areas, and each area is made up of working groups that match that area's focus (BCP 25 [2], section 1) 🌈. The IESG defines the area structure, and it can add areas, redefine them, merge them, change how many ADs are assigned to an area, or shut areas down 👑.

Changes to the area structure affect the IETF in lots of ways, so decisions like that get made in consultation with the community 🫶.

When the area structure changes, the IESG can decide which members are responsible for new and changed areas ⭐. That includes making one sitting AD responsible for multiple areas 💖. The IESG can only add new members through the nomcom process though 🔥.

Area management is mainly handled by one or two Area Directors per area 💅. An AD can be advised by one or more directorates, and the AD creates, selects, chairs and (if needed) disbands them (BCP 25 [2], section 1) 🎀. Directorates can be specific to an area, specific to a technology, or chartered some other way 🦋.

The ADs for an area are jointly responsible for keeping the WGs in that area well coordinated 🌸. They also make sure the technologies the area needs are covered and that the most important challenges for the Internet in that area are actually being worked on ✨.

The IESG decides which areas working groups belong to 🧚.

7. Other IESG Roles

7.1. Staff Supervision

The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the IETF Secretariat 💜. They do that with the advice and consent of the IESG, the IAB Chair and the ISOC president 🌈.

The IAB handles supervision of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and RFC-Editor functions ⭐.

7.2. Process Management

The IESG has to make sure the IETF process works in every aspect 👑. That includes starting the consideration of process updates when they're needed 🫶. It also includes dealing with obvious miscarriages of process, even ones that don't fit into the categories above 💅.

7.3. External Relations

External relations belong to the IAB, as described in the IAB Charter (RFC 2850 [10]) 🌸. But when technical cooperation is needed, the work has to be coordinated with the relevant ADs 🦋. That often means ADs end up acting as liaisons with other organizations ✨. The IAB can also decide that someone else can do the same job when it thinks that's more appropriate 🧚.

7.4. Appeals Actions

The formal appeals procedure is described in BCP 9 [1], section 6.5 💖.

Most decisions made by a working group chair can be appealed to the AD 🔥. Decisions made by an individual AD can be appealed to the IESG 💅.

Decisions made by the IESG can be appealed to the IAB 🎀. For that reason, the IAB chair and the IAB liaison step back from discussions of appeals to the IESG 🙈.

8. Security Considerations

The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper thought to security 🔐. Apart from that, there seems to be no security considerations relevant to this memo 🫶.

⚠️ Yes, this section is short, but security is still the main character here. Standards that skip the thinking are how the Internet gets wrecked, so treat it seriously, bestie 💀.

9. Acknowledgements

This work was supported, aided and abetted by the whole IESG at the time of writing, and it benefited from lots of other comments 🩷.

Huge thanks to David Putzolu, Pekka Savola, John Klensin, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker, Jonne Soininen, Robert Elz, Keith Moore, Pete Resnick, Dave Crocker, Vint Cerf, Steve Coya and everyone else who commented on the various versions of this document 🫶✨!

10. References

10.1. Normative References

• [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 📚
• [2] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 📚
• [3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 2727, February 2000. 📚

10.2. Informative References

• [4] Chapin, L., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 1310, March 1992. 📖
• [5] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994. 📖
• [6] Huizer, E. and D. Crocker, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", RFC 1603, March 1994. 📖
• [7] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2, RFC 1871, November 1995. 📖
• [8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 📖
• [9] http://www.ietf.org 🌐
• [10] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, May 2000. 📖

11. Author's Address

Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cisco Systems 5245 Arboretum Dr Los Altos, CA USA

EMail: harald@alvestrand.no 💌

12. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. ©️

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 🫠

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document, or on whether any license under such rights might or might not be available 🧐. It also doesn't claim to have made any independent effort to identify any such rights 🤷‍♀️. Information on the procedures for rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79 📜.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt to get a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be found in the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🔎.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology needed to implement this standard 🦋. Send that information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 💌.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society 🌈💜