Working Group
Click on the red underlined text to get to the source
... Internet Society. The IETF is composed of individual Working
Groups, which are grouped into Areas, each of which is
coordinated by one or more Area Directors. Nominations to
...
... Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is
urged to participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups
and to attend IETF meetings. In many cases, active ...
... and to attend IETF meetings. In many cases, active Working Group
participation is possible through email alone; furthermore,
...
... remote participation. Participation is by individual technical
contributors rather than formal representatives of organizations.
The process works because the IETF Working Groups display a spirit
of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity;
IETF participants ...
... group that is responsible for the specification, usually an
IETF Working Group.
After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
...
...
After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter
or advance in the Internet standardization process shall be
...
... IESG shall determine if an independent technical review of
the specification is required, and shall commission one when
necessary. This may require creating a new Working Group, or
an existing group may agree to take responsibility for
...
... mailing list. In addition, for important specifications there
shall be a presentation or statement by the appropriate Working
Group or Area Director during an IETF plenary meeting. Any
...
...
(a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),
(b) independent activity by individuals, or
...
... Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that
enter the standards track. In cases (b) and (c), the work might
be tightly integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working
Group, or it might be offered for standardization without prior
IETF involvement. In most cases, a specification resulting from
...
... IETF involvement. In most cases, a specification resulting from
an effort that took place outside of an IETF Working Group will be
submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and
...
... an effort that took place outside of an IETF Working Group will be
submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and
refinement. If necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be
...
... submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and
refinement. If necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be
created.
...
...
For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated
with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to
afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
...
... For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated
with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to
afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
of the specification. If a Working Group ...
... Working Group is assumed to
afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
of the specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all
technical and usage questions, additional independent review may
be necessary. Such reviews may be done within a Working Group ...
... Working Group is unable to resolve all
technical and usage questions, additional independent review may
be necessary. Such reviews may be done within a Working Group
context, or by an ad hoc review committee ...
... committees may also be convened
in other circumstances when the nature of review required is too
small to require the formality of Working Group creation. It is
the responsibility of the appropriate IETF Area Director ...
... This provision is not intended to threaten a legitimate and active
Working Group effort, but rather to provide an administrative
mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
...
...
IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which
sometimes requires difficult compromises between differing
technical solutions. However, there are times when even
...
... resolved with a process of open review and discussion.
Participants in a Working Group may disagree with Working Group
decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are
...
... discussion.
Participants in a Working Group may disagree with Working Group
decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are
not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working
Group ...
... Working Group
decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are
not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working
Group made a technical choice which essentially will not work.
The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process, and
...
... not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working
Group made a technical choice which essentially will not work.
The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process, and
the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two kinds of
disagreements may have different kinds of final outcome, but the
...
... resolution process is the same for both cases.
Working Group participants always should first attempt to discuss
their concerns with the Working Group chair ...
... Working Group participants always should first attempt to discuss
their concerns with the Working Group chair. If this proves
unsatisfactory, they should raise their concerns with an IESG ...
... discussion.
For the general community as well as Working Group participants
seeking a larger audience for their concerns, there are two
opportunities for explicit comment. (1) When appropriate, a
...
... the dispute.
* If a concern involves questions of adequate Working Group
discussion, the IAB ...
... nature and extent of discussion that took place within the
Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record
and upon comments of other Working Group ...
... discussion that took place within the
Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record
and upon comments of other Working Group participants.
...
... Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record
and upon comments of other Working Group participants.
* If a concern involves questions of technical adequacy, the
...
... IAB may convene an appropriate review panel, which may then
recommend that the IESG and Working Group re-consider an
alternate technical choice.
...
...
* If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical
approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working
Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
Working Group ...
... * If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical
approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working
Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
Working Group. The IESG ...
... Working
Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
Working Group. The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points
...
... (c) Assumption
An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification
and develop it into an Internet ...
... TS or AS. This is acceptable if
(1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in
compliance with the requirements of section 5 below, and (2)
...
... obtaining written confirmations.
In the case of IETF Working Groups, the responsibility for
identifying the principal contributor(s) for purposes of
...
... specification. One suggestion was that every standards RFC should
include an email list for the responsible Working Group.
...