RFC 5743

Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Document Stream

📅 published December 2009, from ietf

RFC 5743: Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Document Stream 🎀

Okay bestie, here's the header: this is RFC 5743, titled Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Document Stream. It was written by A. Falk for the IRTF, it's Informational (so not a standard, ngl), and it's dated December 2009. The ISSN is 2070-1721. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates. 💅

Abstract ✨

This memo sets up the publication stream for RFCs coming from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 🦋 Most of the documents going through this process will come from IRTF Research Groups, and they're expected to get published as Informational or Experimental RFCs by the RFC Editor.

Status of this Memo 📝

This document isn't an Internet Standards Track specification. It's published for informational purposes, so no pressure 💜

This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. Those results might not be suitable for deployment. Documents the IRSG approves for publication are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so see Section 2 of RFC 5741 for the details 🌸

Info about this document's current status, any errata, and how to send feedback lives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5743. 🧚

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document. Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the BSD License. 🫶

Table of Contents 📚

1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  2.  Approval Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.1.  Research Group Preparation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.2.  IRSG Review and Approval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.3.  IESG Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    2.4.  RFC Editor Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  3.  Rules for Submission and Use of Material  . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    3.1.  Procedures Requested of the IETF Trust  . . . . . . . . . . 6
    3.2.  Patent and Trademark Rules for the IRTF Stream  . . . . . . 6
  4.  IAB Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  Appendix A.  Internet Research Steering Group membership  . . . . . 9

1. Introduction 🌷

Every so often the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) [RFC2014] wants to publish a document in the Internet RFC series. This memo lays out the steps needed to publish a document in the IRTF RFC stream. Document streams are described in Section 5 of [RFC4844]. Most documents going through this process will come from IRTF Research Groups, and they're expected to get published as Informational or Experimental RFCs by the RFC Editor.

The IRTF RFC stream gives research groups a way to publish their findings with an IRTF label. Editorial review by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) before publication makes documents easier to read and makes sure the proper caveats (described in Section 2.1) are applied. 🧠

The IRTF RFC approval process can be summed up like this:

  • The Research Group (RG) does a thorough technical and editorial review of the document and agrees it should be published.
  • The Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) reviews the document and approves it for publication.
  • The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) reviews the document to make sure there are no conflicts with current or expected standardization activities.
  • The document is submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.

This document was updated based on over a year of experience and handling roughly a dozen documents. The IRTF concludes there's been enough experience to justify that the benefits and the process are sound. ✨

2. Approval Process 💅

The following sections describe the steps for the IRTF-stream document review and publication process. There are basically two steps: IRSG review and IESG review. The document shepherd is responsible for making sure reviews get responded to and documented, and that the process keeps moving. 🏃‍♀️

2.1. Research Group Preparation 🎀

If an IRTF Research Group wants to publish a document as an IRTF RFC, the process in this document has to be followed. First, the RG has to review the document for editorial and technical quality.

These guidelines should be followed:

  • There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as the product of the RG.
  • There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in the introduction) describing the level of support for publication. Example text might read: "this document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG" or "the views in this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published".
  • The breadth of review the document has received must also be noted. For example, was this document read by all the active research group members, only three people, or folks who are not "in" the RG but are expert in the area?
  • It must also be very clear throughout the document that it is not an IETF product and is not a standard. 🙅‍♀️
  • If an experimental protocol is described, appropriate usage caveats must be present. ⚠️
  • If the protocol has been considered in an IETF working group in the past, this must be noted in the introduction as well.
  • There should be citations and references to relevant research publications. 📚

The Research Group picks a document shepherd, whose job is to track the document and help it move through RFC publication. The shepherd should be copied on all correspondence about the document. 🫶

2.2. IRSG Review and Approval 🔥

The IRSG works kind of like an editorial review board. It's the IRSG's job to make sure the technical and editorial quality is high. The IRSG reviews and approves all documents meant for RFC publication from the IRTF stream.

The point of IRSG review is to make sure IRTF publications have consistent technical clarity and editorial quality. IRSG review is not a deep technical review, because that should happen inside the RG. At least one IRSG member who is not a chair of that research group must review the document and the RG's editorial process. 👀

IRSG reviewers should look for writing that is clear, cogent, and consistent. A big part of the review is getting a critical read from reviewers who are not subject matter experts, which helps make sure the document is accessible to people outside the authoring research group. Reviewers should also check whether enough editorial and technical review has happened within the RG and whether this process document's requirements have been met. For example, they should evaluate whether the breadth of review the document received is adequate for the material at hand. Last but not least, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to related research literature have been made. 🧐

Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments go to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and get entered into the IRTF's document tracker. All IRSG review comments must be addressed, but the RG doesn't need to accept every comment. The shepherd is responsible for understanding the comments and making sure the RG considers them, including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. 💬

After the editorial review is resolved, the IRSG decides whether to approve the document for publication. If the IRSG doesn't approve it, the document goes back to the research group with feedback on what needs fixing before it can be published. In rare cases, the IRSG may decide a document isn't suitable for publication as an IRTF RFC. For example, members of the RG may tell the IRSG there was no RG consensus to publish the document. Other publication streams would still be available to those authors. 🦋

Note: even when the IRSG rules out the IRTF stream, the authors still have other publication streams to choose from. 💖

3. Rules for Submission and Use of Material ✨

okay so the whole vibe of the IRTF Stream is that research should have broad impact 💖 and publication rights should, in general, NOT stop people from republishing stuff (as long as they cite it properly 🎀). BUT, in uncommon cases, a doc might need to be published in a way that does not allow derivative works 🙈. This section, adapted from [RFC5744], lays out the rules and procedures that make this work 💅. For the full background and reasoning behind the specific language, go read [RFC5744] 🧚. (Historically, the goal has been to keep the rights IRTF authors already had when publishing as RFC Editor Independent Submissions. [RFC5744] defines those rights 🌸.)

IRTF Stream authors submit their material as Internet-Drafts 📝. These drafts get submitted to, and stored in, the IETF Internet-Drafts repository, the same way as any other IETF Internet-Draft 🫶. During Internet-Draft submission, authors who plan to submit their document for publication in the IRTF Stream grant rights as described in [RFC5378] 🔥. If you want the contribution published as an RFC that permits no derivative works, you use the form specified for use with RFC 5378 💜.

The IETF Trust will indicate that, working together with the IRTF, the Trust grants readers and users of material from IRTF Stream RFCs the right to make unlimited derivative works, unless the RFC specifies that no derivative works are permitted 👑. This means anyone can copy, extract, modify, or otherwise use material from IRTF Stream RFCs, as long as suitable attribution is given ⭐.

Contributors of Internet-Drafts intended for the IRTF Stream include suitable boilerplate defined by the IETF Trust 🌈. That boilerplate MUST indicate compliance with RFC 5378 and MUST explicitly indicate either that no derivative works can be based on the contribution, or, as is preferred, that unlimited derivative works may be crafted from the contribution 💖. Just know that the final publication decision for the IRTF Stream rests with the IRTF Chair 🙈. Following these terms does NOT guarantee publication 💀. The IRTF Chair may question whether a "no derivative works" restriction requested by an author is appropriate 🫠, and that appropriateness has to be negotiated between the authors and the IRTF Chair 🤝.

3.1. Procedures Requested of the IETF Trust 🦋

The IRTF requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees help meet the goals and procedures in this document 🫶. The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights for the IRTF Stream 📣. They are also requested to indicate their willingness and intent to work according to the procedures and goals defined by the IRTF ✨. Specifically, the Trustees are asked to develop the necessary boilerplate so documents get suitably marked and the IETF Trust receives the rights specified in RFC 5378 🎀. These procedures also need to allow documents to grant either no rights to make derivative works or, preferably, the right to make unlimited derivative works 🌸. It's up to the Trust to specify exactly how this gets clearly indicated in each document 💅.

3.2. Patent and Trademark Rules for the IRTF Stream ⚖️

As specified above, contributors of documents for the IRTF Stream are expected to use the IETF Internet-Draft process 📝, complying with the rules in the latest version of BCP 9, whose version at the time of writing was [RFC2026] 💜. This includes disclosing Patent and Trademark issues that are known, or can reasonably be expected to be known, to the contributor 🚨. Disclosing license terms for patents is also requested, as specified in the most recent version of BCP 79 🫶. The version of BCP 79 at the time of this writing was RFC 3979 [RFC3979], which is updated by [RFC4879] 🦋. The IRTF Stream chose to use the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism, www.ietf.org/ipr/, for this purpose 🌐. The IRTF would prefer that the most liberal terms possible be made available for specifications published as IRTF Stream documents 🌈. Terms that don't require fees or licensing are preferable 🍓. Non-discriminatory terms are strongly preferred over ones that discriminate among users 🧚. Still, although disclosure is REQUIRED, there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related to IRTF Stream publication 🙌.

Wait, I need to correct the above: the original does not use capitalised key words for disclosure, so I must not capitalise anything here. The corrected paragraph follows.

Okay so, quick fix, bestie 🫶: the original says disclosure "is required," not REQUIRED, so the line above was wrong. Here's the true version of that last bit: although disclosure is required 🍓, there are no specific requirements on the licensing terms for intellectual property related to IRTF Stream publication ✨.

4. IAB Statement 🌸

In its capacity as the body that approves the creation of document streams (see [RFC4844]), the IAB has reviewed this proposal and supports it 💖. It's an operational change that lines up with the respective roles of the IRTF, IESG, and RFC Editor 🧚.

5. Security Considerations 🔐

There are no security considerations in this document 🌈.

6. Acknowledgements 💜

This document was developed in close collaboration with the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), see Appendix A for membership 🫶. Useful contributions came from Mark Allman, Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Stephen Farrell, Tom Henderson, Rajeev Koodli, Danny McPherson, Allison Mankin, Craig Partridge, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Karen Sollins, and Mark Townsley, who contributed to developing the process defined in this document 👑.

7. Informative References 📚

[RFC2014]  Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
           and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996.

[RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC3979]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
           Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.

[RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
           Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

[RFC4879]  Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
           Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.

[RFC5378]  Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide
           to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.

[RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed., "On RFC Streams,
           Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.

[RFC5742]  Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
           Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
           BCP 92, RFC 5742, December 2009.

[RFC5744]  Braden, R. and J. Halpern, "Procedures for Rights Handling
           in the RFC Independent Submission Stream", RFC 5744,
           December 2009.

Appendix A. Internet Research Steering Group Membership 🎀

IRSG members at the time of this writing:

   Bill Arbaugh, MOBOPTS RG; Bob Braden; John Buford, SAM RG; Ran
   Canetti, CFRG; Leslie Daigle; Wes Eddy, ICCRG; Aaron Falk, IRTF
   Chair; Kevin Fall, DTN RG; Stephen Farrell, DTN RG; Sally Floyd,
   TMRG; Andrei Gurtov, HIPRG; Tom Henderson, HIPRG; Rajeev Koodli,
   MOBOPTS RG; Olaf Kolkman, IAB Chair; John Levine, ASRG; Tony Li,
   RRG; Dave McGrew, CFRG; Jeremy Mineweaser, SAM RG; Craig
   Partridge, E2E RG; Juergen Schoenwaelder, NMRG; Karen Sollins, E2E
   RG; Michael Welzl, ICCRG; John Wroclawski; Lixia Zhang, RRG

Author's Address 🧚

Aaron Falk
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA  02138
USA

Phone: +1-617-873-2575
EMail: falk@bbn.com
📦 where this page comes from