1 / 9

An RFC Stream for the IRTF

An RFC Stream for the IRTF. Wednesday, 12 March 2008 Scalable Adaptive Multicast RG. Why a (separate) stream?. Offer RGs an alternative to the existing independent submission stream for RFCs Potentially a faster publication track Quality is improved by IRSG review

foster
Download Presentation

An RFC Stream for the IRTF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An RFC Stream for the IRTF Wednesday, 12 March 2008 Scalable Adaptive Multicast RG

  2. Why a (separate) stream? • Offer RGs an alternative to the existing independent submission stream for RFCs • Potentially a faster publication track • Quality is improved by IRSG review • Independent submissions are still an option • An avenue for groups to publish findings with an IRTF label • Informational or Experimental RFCs

  3. The Process in a Nutshell(Draft) • Thorough review by the Research Group • Technical review • Editorial review • RG reaches agreement on publication • IRSG Review and Approval • IESG Review • Submitted to RFC Editor for publication

  4. Document Shepherds • Purpose is to track the review process, to ensure timely response to issues raised • Find IRSG reviewers, summarize comments • Facilitate resolution of issues • Keep tracker* up-to-date * Today, a separate IRTF tracker; eventually, IETF tracker • Normally, RG chair is shepherd • If RG chair is author, IRTF chair must approve • RG chair may delegate to an RG member

  5. RG Preparation • Abstract should identify as product of RG • Paragraph describing level of RG support • Also note breadth of I-D review within RG • Make it clear: not IETF doc, not a standard • Include appropriate caveats for protocols • If previously considered in IETF, so note • Cite the relevant literature appropriately

  6. IRSG Review • Initial Steps (performed by shepherd) • Request review, enter into tracker, find reviewers, open a poll • Reviews • Looking for clear, cogent, consistent writing • Accessible to non-experts; proper citations to literature • IRSG Poll: at least two other members must vote • ‘Ready to publish’, ‘Not ready to publish’, ‘No objection’, ‘Request more time’ • Follow-up • Shepherd documents everything in the tracker

  7. IESG Review • Scope is "[t]o ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process.“ • IESG response is due within 4 weeks, typically • If IESG recommends Do-Not-Publish, RG may revise document per feedback, or appeal to IAB

  8. RFC Editor Handling • IRTF Chair forwards document to Editor • Document enters the publication queue • Same priority as IETF/IAB non-standards documents • Shepherd ensures authors are responsive as the document moves through editing process

  9. I-D History and Current Status • draft-irtf-rfcs • 00 draft released 26 February 2006 • 01 draft released 08 June 2007 • An update is currently in progress, awaiting input from IAB/IESG • For the latest draft text, see http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRTF-RFCs

More Related