File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 1
Spencer DawkinsTektronix
WG Chairs Training
Original slides from Margaret WassermanThingMagic
[email protected] is responsible for the dumb parts
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 2
My Checkered Career at IETF
Working Group co-chair for PILC (with Aaron Falk)● BoF in Dec 1998, concluded in Dec 2003
Produced 7 RFCsSurvived four co-chair sponsor organization changesSurvived regime changes (AD and IETF chair)Survived editor thrashing on major draftsSurvived RFC Auth-48 with 16 text resets/142 e-mail● This was with the RFC-Editor as co-chair!
Since surrendering my blue dot, now serving on● General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)● EDU Team (“you are here”)● General Area Directorate
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 3
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesChartering and Re-charteringThe Working Group Document ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 4
So, You Want to be a WG Chair ...
You have to balance progress and fairness● If you don’t make progress, fairness doesn’t matter● If you aren’t fair, you won’t make progress● Chairing a WG is not the time to insist on your own way!
How willing are you to work through others?● How successful are you when you work with
competitors?● How successful are you when you work with volunteers?
How committed are you?● It will almost always take longer than you think● Sponsoring organization changes are commonplace● ADs often prefer not to have authors as chairs
What are you doing now?
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 5
WG Leadership Roles
Chair(s) – manage process, judge consensus● I’ll be assuming “two co-chairs” for a number of reasons
WG Secretary – publishes agendas, takes minutes● Most chairs don’t do administrivia well, but still try –
why?● Think very seriously about appointing a WG secretary!
Document editor – reflect WG consensus in specification, track and resolve issuesResponsible Area Director – oversee process, products● Called a “shepherding AD”. Think about why..● S/he doesn’t have to agree, but s/he has to believe you● Keep your shepherding AD up-to-date – that’s your job
“Communication is a good thing”● I learned this in my second marriage
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 6
AD & WG Chair Authority
Chair can replace document editors● Should have the backing of AD● Editor replacement is painful but may be required● AD can recommend document editor replacement● AD can strongly recommend …
AD can replace chairAD can close the WG
Jeff Schiller, former Security Area Director:● “ADs have only the power to delay and destroy”
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 7
WG Chair Responsibilities
Negotiate charter and charter updates with ADs
Keep the processes open, fair, and moving forward
Select and manage the editors and the WG to produce high quality, relevant output● Meets published document format/standards (ID-nits)● High technical quality and relevance/usefulness
Schedule and run meetings
Keep milestones up-to-date (with AD approval)
Judge WG consensus
“Manage up” – Track WG documents during approvals
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 8
WG Chair or Secretary Tasks
Schedule meetings and plan agendasProduce minutes, return blue sheetsMaintain WG milestonesManage/moderate the WG mailing listKeep track of WG work item status and make it clear to the WG● Issue WG last calls● Submit documents to the IESG when
appropriate
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 9
Editor Responsibilities
Produce a document that reflects WG consensus and meets IETF editorial requirements● I-D Nits and RFC Editor guidelines
Raise issues for discussion and resolution at meetings or on the list● If contention, WG chair judges consensus
Track document issues and resolutions● Some type of issue tracking software or tools are
recommended, but not required
A lot more information in “Editor’s Training” notes
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 10
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesChartering and Re-charteringThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 11
WG Formation
WGs may or may not start with a BOF● Most WGs do start with BoFs● BoFs have to pass “the giggle test”
Before chartering, WGs should have:● Well-understood problem● Clearly-defined goals● Community support (producers and
consumers)● Involvement of experts from all affected areas● Base of interested consumers● Active mailing list
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 12
WG Charter Contents
Administrative information● Chair and AD e-mail addresses● WG e-mail info
Purpose, direction and objectives of the WGDescription of WG work itemsSpecific WG milestones
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 13
WG Charter Approval
Contract between the WG and the IETF ● Regarding scope of WG ● Identifying specific work to be delivered● Initially negotiated by WG chair(s) and AD(s)● Sent to the community for comment● Approved by the IESG
Re-charter as needed● Minor changes (milestones, nits) approved
by AD● Substantive changes require IESG approval
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 14
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesChartering and Re-charteringThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 15
Understanding the WG Process
Why do we need to reach common understanding of our processes?● The process will work more efficiently● The process can work more consistently
Leads to more actual and perceived fairness
● Distinguish between process and technical discussion
● WG members can provide useful input to complex process decisions, and keep the chairs honest
This used to be really controversial stuff…
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 16
Goals of the WG Process
Follow the spirit of the IETF process● Not just the letter of the process● Openness, fairness and progress● WG discusses all issues/changes to work items
Produce technically sound and useful output● Raising the bar for acceptance as a WG work
item● Raising the bar for sending drafts to the IESG● Identify problems early – less pain, more
progress
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 17
Steps in the WG Process
Initial Submission
Author Refinement
WG Acceptance
Editor Selection
WG Refinement
WG Last Call
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 18
Steps in the WG Process
Initial Submission● Original idea or issue is submitted to the WG
May be done via mailing list or at a meeting Should become an Internet-Draft (or part of one)
● Chairs will reject submissions that don’t fit within the WG charter, in chair judgment May refer submission to more appropriate groups or
areas
● Chairs should reject submissions that aren't relevant or don't meet minimal quality requirements
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 19
Steps in the WG Process
Author Refinement● Idea is more fully documented or refined
based on feedback May be done by the person who originally submitted
the idea/issue, or by others May be done by individual, ad hoc group or more
formal design team
● Change control lies with author(s) during this phase
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 20
Steps in the WG Process
WG Acceptance● For a document to become a WG work item,
it must: Fit within the WG charter (in the opinion of the
chairs) Have significant support from the working group,
including:– People with expertise in all applicable areas who are
willing to invest time to review the document, provide feedback, etc.
– Probable (or current) implementors, if applicable
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 21
Steps in the WG Process
WG Acceptance, part two● To become a WG work item, a document
must: Be accepted as a work item by a rough consensus of
the WG– Should reflect WG belief that the document is taking
the correct approach and would be a good starting place for a WG product
Have corresponding goals/milestones in the charter – Approved by the Area Directors
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 22
Steps in the WG Process
Editor Selection● Editor(s) will be selected by the WG chairs
Usually one or more of the original authors – but not always
Must be willing to set aside personal technical agendas and change the document based solely on WG consensus
Must have the time and interest to drive the work to completion in a timely manner
● Make this decision explicitly, not by default! Some people are concept people, some are detail
people Some people start strong, some people finish strong
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 23
Steps in the WG Process
WG Refinement● Document updated based on WG consensus
All technical issues and proposed changes MUST be openly discussed on the list and/or in meetings
All changes must be proposed to the mailing list– Complex changes should be proposed in separate IDs
The WG has change control during this phase– Changes are only made based on WG consensus– During this phase, silence will indicate consent
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 24
Steps in the WG Process
WG Last Call● Final check that the WG has rough consensus
to advance the document to the IESG WG consensus indicates that the WG believes that
this document is both technically sound and useful, and ready to go to the IESG
● Process BCPs do not actually require WG Last Call It is a good idea, however A disturbingly large number of people wait to read
drafts!
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 25
Steps in the WG Process
WG Last Call● The document must be reviewed and actively
supported by a significant number of people, including experts in all applicable areas
● … or it should not be sent to the IESG● “Why would we want to waste IESG time on a
document that we can’t be bothered to review ourselves?”
● Silence does NOT indicate consent during this phase
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 26
Has anyone else read the draft?
Standards-track documents reflect IETF views● Not just a working group’s view● “Will this work on an arbitrary IP network?”
Avoid the group-think trap● Ask “who else should be reading this draft?”● Your ADs are good sources of potential
reviewers
Don’t wait until the last minute to share● Stop the “last-minute surprise” madness
Some “last minute surprise” examples
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 27
When “IP” is “Intellectual Property”
IPR is a land mine waiting for your WG● Read RFCs 3667/3668/3669● All three are critical, 3669 is painful experience
Ask contributors about IPR early and oftenThe IETF does not require royalty-free IPR● But many WGs prefer royalty-free IPR
If you can avoid encumbered IPR, great...● ... but you still have to deliver a solution!
Keep your ADs informed when claims are filed
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 28
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 29
IESG Hand-Off
After WG Last Call issues are resolved, chair submits I-D to IESG● Mail to responsible AD(s) and secretariat
Document entered into tracker in “Publication Requested” stateAfter this point, WG Chairs can track document status in the I-D Tracker● https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/
pidtracker.cgi● This is the best tool for WG chairs in ten
years!
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 30
Steps in IESG Document Process
AD ReviewIETF Last Call IESG ReviewDocument sent to RFC Editor and IANA
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 31
AD Review
Responsible AD reviews the document to determine if it is ready for the next step● IETF Last Call for standards-track● IESG review for non-standards-track
Comments may be returned at this phase● Substantive issues should go to WG● Editorial issues may go only to Editor(s) and
Chair(s)
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 32
IETF Last Call
Last Call for community review and comment● Required for all standards-track documents● Optional for all other documents● At least two weeks for WG output● At least four weeks for non-WG output
All Last Call comments must be addressed● “Addressed” may not mean “document
changed”
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 33
IESG Review
Document is placed on an IESG telechat agenda● Telechats held every two weeks, agenda items submitted
one week in advance
Each IESG member provides a ballot position● Yes or No Objection● Discuss● Abstain (or Recuse)
Any position may be accompanied by non-blocking commentsDocument passes when it has nine Yes or No-Objection positions and no DiscussesAll Discuss comments must be addressed before a document is publishedMost ADs are using Area Review Teams to process drafts
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 34
RFC Editor and IANA
After the IESG approves a document, it is sent to the RFC Editor At this point, IANA can do allocations related to the approved documentBe aware of reference dependencies● Draft will not be published with drafts as
references● Dependencies may be circular ( and even
indirect)
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 35
The Last Stop Before RFC
Has the document changed since WG last call?● In AD Evaluation?● In IESG Review?● In RFC Editor Review?
Small changes are not a problemShare significant changes with the WG● We do not do this nearly well enough today
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 36
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and Accessible
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 37
Rough Consensus
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code."
-- Dave Clark
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 38
Consensus
Clearly dominant agreementDoes not have to be unanimousJudging consensus can be hard w/o voting● humm● show of hands (sorta like voting but ...)
Even harder on a mailing list● ask for "humm" & provide list of hummers at
end?
May discard parts to get consensus on rest
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 39
If Someone Appeals Your Decision
They need to do this in writingThey make clear, concise statement of problem● With separate backup documentation
They make it clear that this is an appeal They make specific suggestions for remedyThey do not try to jump the steps in the process● Wait for specific response for each step
Avoid personal attacks (in either direction!)
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 40
Appeal Process
Process &/or technical appeal to WG chairProcess &/or technical appeal to ADProcess &/or technical appeal to IESG● via email to IESG list
Process &/or technical appeal to IAB● via email to IAB list
Standards process appeal to ISOC BoT● via email to ISOC president● But ONLY for appeals of process violation
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 41
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesChartering and Re-charteringThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 42
Openness and Accessibility
WG should be open to everyone who wants to participate● In person or via mailing list only
WGs don’t make final decisions in meetings● Consensus must be confirmed on the mailing
list
Not all people participate the same way● Be aware of cultural differences, language
issues...
Openness and fairness of the WG process is your responsibility as chair
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 43
Structured Discussion Slides
Recommend use of slides for structured discussion and consensus calls
Openness includes accessibility to non-native English speakers, hearing-impaired people, etc.
Written consensus questions result in higher quality and more credible responses
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 44
WG Chairs Training
WG Chair Role and ResponsibilitiesChartering and Re-charteringThe Working Group ProcessLife of a Draft After the WGConsensus and Problem SolvingMaking WGs Open and AccessibleResources and Administrivia
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 45
Required Reading
RFC 2026: Internet Standards Process● Explains document processes, appeals process,
etc.
Significant Updates to Intellectual Property● RFC 3667, RFC 3668, RFC 3669
RFC 2418: IETF WG Guidelines and Procedures● Defines WG chair role, rules for conducting WG
business, etc.
Keep an eye out for process changes● NEWTRK, ICAR, PROTO (still under way)
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 46
On the Naming of Internet-drafts
Traditional file name conventions:● WG: draft-ietf-acronym-whatever● Individual: draft-author/group-whatever
Draft-author-acronym-whatever if submitted to a particular WG
Use these conventions!● They are not required, but they are assumed by most● Yes, renaming WG drafts “breaks continuity”. Sorry!
WG chair must approve all initial I-D submissions before draft-ietf-acronym filename assigned
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 47
Copyrights
IDs must contain RFC 3668 boilerplate● Absolute Requirement: Any ID for standards
track documents MUST permit editing by the working group
● All submitted IDs must contain correct boilerplate
ISOC holds non-exclusive copyright on RFCs
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 48
WG Mailing Lists and Web Pages
<acronym>[email protected] MUST be on the mailing list● ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/acronym● Additional archive, not the only archive
WG web page can include link to additional web page● Maintain WG work item status, etc.
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 49
Web Pages to Know About
WG Chairs web page● http://www.ietf.org/IESG/wgchairs.html
IESG web page● http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html
ID-Tracker● https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/
pidtracker.cgi
RFC Editors web page● http://www.rfc-editor.org/
A dozen important process mailing addresses● http://www.ietf.org/secretariat.html
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 50
Continuing Education
For your working group● Newcomer’s Orientation● Editor’s Training● Security Tutorial
For you● Editor’s Training● Continuing Education for Serving WG Chairs
Watch out for● “Bringing new work into the IETF”
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 6 November, 2004 Slide 51
Questions?