Network Working Group IAB Advisory Committee
Request for Comments: 3716 IETF
Category: Informational March 2004
Network Working Group IAB Advisory Committee
Request for Comments: 3716 IETF
Category: Informational March 2004
The IETF in the Large: Administration and Execution
大型IETF：管理和执行
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
In the fall of 2003, the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair formed an IAB Advisory Committee (AdvComm), with a mandate to review the existing IETF administrative structure and relationships (RFC Editor, IETF Secretariat, IANA) and to propose changes to the IETF management process or structure to improve the overall functioning of the IETF. The AdvComm mandate did not include the standards process itself.
2003年秋天，IETF主席和IAB主席成立了IAB咨询委员会（AdvComm），其任务是审查现有的IETF管理结构和关系（RFC编辑、IETF秘书处、IANA），并提出IETF管理流程或结构的变更建议，以改善IETF的整体运作。AdvComm授权不包括标准流程本身。
This memo documents the AdvComm's findings and proposals.
本备忘录记录了AdvComm的调查结果和建议。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Overview of the AdvComm Work Process and Output. . . . 3
1.2. Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Current IETF Support Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. What the Term IETF Includes in this Document . 4
2.1.2. Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3. Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Observed Stress Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Stress Points Observed by IETF Leadership. . . 8
2.2.2. Stress Points Observed by Organizations
Supporting the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. A final Observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Stand Facing the Future: Requirements for a Successful
IETF Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Resource Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Uniform Budgetary Responsibility . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Overview of the AdvComm Work Process and Output. . . . 3
1.2. Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Current IETF Support Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. What the Term IETF Includes in this Document . 4
2.1.2. Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3. Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Observed Stress Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Stress Points Observed by IETF Leadership. . . 8
2.2.2. Stress Points Observed by Organizations
Supporting the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. A final Observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Stand Facing the Future: Requirements for a Successful
IETF Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Resource Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Uniform Budgetary Responsibility . . . . . . . 10
3.1.2. Revenue Source Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3. Clarity in Relationship with Supporting
Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. Flexibility in Service Provisioning. . . . . . 11
3.1.5. Administrative Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Stewardship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1. Accountability for Change. . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2. Persistence and Accessibility of Records . . . 12
3.3. Working Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Service Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Advisory Committee Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Proposed: (Single) Formalized IETF Organizational
Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1. Comments on the Necessity of this
Formalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Possible Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. ISOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2. ISOC Subsidiary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Completely Autonomous Organizational Entity. . 16
4.3. Who Can Decide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. IAB Advisory Committee Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Input from the current IETF and IAB Chairs . . . . . . . . . 20
C. Consultation with ISI: RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. Consultation with Foretec/CNRI: Secretariat and Meeting
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
E. Consultation with ICANN: IANA Protocol Parameter
Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.2. Revenue Source Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3. Clarity in Relationship with Supporting
Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. Flexibility in Service Provisioning. . . . . . 11
3.1.5. Administrative Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Stewardship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1. Accountability for Change. . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2. Persistence and Accessibility of Records . . . 12
3.3. Working Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Service Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Advisory Committee Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Proposed: (Single) Formalized IETF Organizational
Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1. Comments on the Necessity of this
Formalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Possible Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. ISOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2. ISOC Subsidiary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Completely Autonomous Organizational Entity. . 16
4.3. Who Can Decide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. IAB Advisory Committee Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Input from the current IETF and IAB Chairs . . . . . . . . . 20
C. Consultation with ISI: RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. Consultation with Foretec/CNRI: Secretariat and Meeting
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
E. Consultation with ICANN: IANA Protocol Parameter
Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
In the fall of 2003, the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair formed an IAB Advisory Committee (AdvComm), with a mandate to review the existing IETF administrative structure and relationships (RFC Editor, IETF Secretariat, IANA) and to propose changes to the IETF management process or structure to improve the overall functioning of the IETF. This purpose was defined in the IAB Advisory Committee (AdvComm) charter, copied in Appendix A. The AdvComm mandate did not include the standards process itself.
2003年秋天，IETF主席和IAB主席成立了IAB咨询委员会（AdvComm），其任务是审查现有的IETF管理结构和关系（RFC编辑、IETF秘书处、IANA），并提出IETF管理流程或结构的变更建议，以改善IETF的整体运作。这一目的在IAB咨询委员会（AdvComm）章程中进行了定义，并抄录在附录A中。AdvComm授权不包括标准流程本身。
The tangible output of this committee is a set of observations and recommendations for the IETF's executive structure - how the IETF might be organizationally (re)structured so that it can effectively and efficiently carry out its administrative activities. As a necessary preamble to that, a description of the current issues and future requirements is presented. The output does not represent any decision-making or implementation -- see Section 1.3 for a discussion of follow-on steps.
该委员会的具体产出是对IETF执行结构的一系列观察和建议，即IETF如何组织（重组）结构，以使其能够有效和高效地开展管理活动。作为必要的序言，本文介绍了当前问题和未来需求。输出不代表任何决策或实现——有关后续步骤的讨论，请参见第1.3节。
The AdvComm was formed in September 2003, and carried out its work over the course of the following 2 months, prior to the IETF58 in November of 2003.
AdvComm成立于2003年9月，在2003年11月IETF58之前的两个月内开展工作。
The AdvComm's membership included many of the individuals who are, or have been, volunteered to manage the IETF's inter-organization administrative relationships in recent years. The first phase of the committee's work, therefore, included sharing and discussing the body of tacit knowledge about those relationships. This included the input from the current IETF and IAB Chairs in Appendix B, and yielded the IETF organizational structure information in Section 2.1.
AdvComm的成员包括近年来自愿管理IETF组织间管理关系的许多个人。因此，委员会工作的第一阶段包括分享和讨论关于这些关系的大量隐性知识。这包括附录B中当前IETF和IAB主席的输入，并产生了第2.1节中的IETF组织结构信息。
The committee also sought input from the other end of the key existing administrative relationships (RFC Editor, Secretariat, and IANA). The output of those efforts is included in Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E, and these were also used as the basis for the observations in Section 2.
委员会还寻求现有主要行政关系的另一端（RFC编辑、秘书处和IANA）的投入。这些工作的成果包括在附录C、附录D和附录E中，这些成果也被用作第2节中观察结果的基础。
From these inputs, the committee drew together a list of requirements for successful future IETF administration, documented in Section 3.
根据这些输入，委员会制定了一份未来IETF成功管理的要求清单，记录在第3节中。
Finally, the committee put together some advice for how the IETF might consider reorganizing its administrative structure to meet those requirements moving forward -- Section 4.
最后，委员会提出了一些建议，以供IETF考虑如何重组其管理结构以满足这些要求——第4节。
The AdvComm endeavored to stay focused on the IETF executive structure -- the collection of organizations that work together to bring the IETF's work to reality. However, by virtue of the very fact that those relationships exist to get the work done, it was important to bear in mind the work being done in the IETF PROBLEM working group and IESG proposals for change, even as the committee endeavored not to infringe on the scope of those efforts. The objective is that these observations and proposals should be relevant for today's IETF and any near-term evolutions that are deemed appropriate.
AdvComm致力于将重点放在IETF的执行结构上，这是一个组织的集合，这些组织共同努力将IETF的工作变为现实。然而，由于这些关系的存在是为了完成工作，因此重要的是要记住IETF问题工作组和IESG变革提案中正在进行的工作，即使委员会努力不侵犯这些工作的范围。目标是这些观察结果和建议应与今天的IETF和任何被认为合适的近期演变相关。
This documents the state of the AdvComm's thinking at the end of a two month process, and brings the currently-chartered work of the AdvComm to a close.
本文件记录了AdvComm在两个月过程结束时的思维状态，并结束了AdvComm目前的特许工作。
Next steps include review of this material by the community, and specific proposals for action that will be put forward by the IAB and IETF Chairs.
接下来的步骤包括社区对该材料的审查，以及IAB和IETF主席将提出的具体行动建议。
RFC 3233 ([1]) provides a definition of the IETF, in terms of its work and its participation.
RFC 3233（[1]）提供了IETF的工作和参与定义。
This document discusses the collection of organizations that work together to support the effort described in RFC 3233. In this document, the term "IETF" explicitly includes the IESG, WGs, IAB, IRTF, and RGs. This inclusive sense accords with considerable common usage of the term "IETF". Formally, the IAB and IRTF are chartered independently of the IETF. However, rather than coming up with a new term to encompass "the IETF and all its friends", the common usage is followed here.
本文档讨论了共同支持RFC 3233中所述工作的组织集合。在本文件中，术语“IETF”明确包括IESG、WGs、IAB、IRTF和RGs。这种包容性的含义符合“IETF”一词的相当普遍的用法。在形式上，IAB和IRTF是独立于IETF特许的。然而，与其提出一个新术语来涵盖“IETF及其所有朋友”，这里遵循的是常见用法。
The work of the IETF is supported by a specific set of functions. It is useful to distinguish between the functions and the organizations which provide those services, as outlined in the table below. In some cases a single organization provides multiple services, but the functions are logically distinct.
IETF的工作由一组特定的功能支持。如下表所示，区分职能和提供这些服务的组织是有益的。在某些情况下，单个组织提供多个服务，但功能在逻辑上是不同的。
Function Known as Organization
(within the IETF)
--------- ---------------- ------------
IESG Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
IAB Support ISOC/Secretariat ISOC, Foretec/CNRI
WG Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
Community Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
IETF Meetings Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
RFC Publication RFC Editor USC/ISI
Standards Status Record RFC Editor USC/ISI
Parameter Reg. IANA ICANN
Legal, insurance, etc. (largely invisible) Provided by ISOC
Function Known as Organization
(within the IETF)
--------- ---------------- ------------
IESG Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
IAB Support ISOC/Secretariat ISOC, Foretec/CNRI
WG Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
Community Support Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
IETF Meetings Secretariat Foretec/CNRI
RFC Publication RFC Editor USC/ISI
Standards Status Record RFC Editor USC/ISI
Parameter Reg. IANA ICANN
Legal, insurance, etc. (largely invisible) Provided by ISOC
Table 1. IETF functions, labels and organizations
表1。IETF功能、标签和组织
In more detail, the functions can be broken down as follows:
更详细地说，这些功能可以细分如下：
IESG Support
IESG支持
Telechats Communications IETF document tracking Working document management (mailing list, website, repository)
Telechats Communications IETF文档跟踪工作文档管理（邮件列表、网站、存储库）
IAB support
IAB支持
Telechats Communications Working document management (mailing list, website, repository)
Telechats Communications工作文档管理（邮件列表、网站、存储库）
WG support
工作组支持
Charters Milestone tracking Workspace (website, mailing list) Working document archive (mailing list archives, document repository)
Charters里程碑跟踪工作区（网站、邮件列表）工作文档归档（邮件列表归档、文档存储库）
Community Support
社区支持
Website IETF mailing list Announcements I-D repository
网站IETF邮件列表公告I-D存储库
RFC Publication
RFC出版物
Website RFC editorial Document publication RFC repository management Official standards status record
网站RFC编辑文档出版物RFC存储库管理官方标准状态记录
IETF Meetings
IETF会议
Planning Meeting Proceedings
规划会议程序
Protocol parameter registration
协议参数注册
Creation of registries Assignment of protocol parameters Management of accessible registry repository
创建注册表分配协议参数管理可访问注册表存储库
Legal, insurance, etc.
法律、保险等。
Legal support Liability insurance for IAB, IESG, WG chairs, etc. Miscellaneous
IAB、IESG、WG主席等的法律支持责任保险。杂项
A presentation of the scope and depth of support that created the IETF and has allowed it to continue to contribute would require a discussion of history that is rich, vibrant, and completely beyond the scope of this document. However, a very brief introduction to some of the current pillars is needed to understand where the IETF is today.
介绍创建IETF并使其继续发挥作用的支持范围和深度需要对丰富、活跃且完全超出本文件范围的历史进行讨论。然而，需要对当前的一些支柱进行非常简要的介绍，以了解IETF的现状。
ISOC: Since 1992, ISOC has been the organizational home of the IETF. This activity is part of its more general mission of serving as the international organization for global coordination and cooperation on the Internet, promoting and maintaining a broad spectrum of activities focused on the Internet's development, availability, and associated technologies.
ISOC：自1992年以来，ISOC一直是IETF的组织总部。这项活动是其更广泛使命的一部分，即作为国际互联网全球协调与合作组织，促进和维持以互联网的发展、可用性和相关技术为重点的广泛活动。
Foretec/CNRI: The Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) was founded in 1986, and since 1987, CNRI has served the community by providing IETF Secretariat services. Until the early 1990s, CNRI provided legal assistance to the IETF and the IETF Secretariat. After ISOC was founded, ISOC assumed overall legal responsibility for the substantive workings of the IETF including the efforts of the IETF chair, the IESG, the IAB, the area
Foretec/CNRI：国家研究倡议公司（CNRI）成立于1986年，自1987年以来，CNRI通过提供IETF秘书处服务为社区服务。直到20世纪90年代初，国家人权研究所向IETF和IETF秘书处提供法律援助。ISOC成立后，ISOC对IETF的实质性工作承担全面的法律责任，包括IETF主席、IESG、IAB和区域的工作
directors and the working group chairs. CNRI assumed operational responsibility for the substantive workings of the IETF Secretariat. In 1998, in order to decrease overhead costs on the activities, the Secretariat was reorganized placing Secretariat employees including the IETF Executive Director in a CNRI for-profit subsidiary (Foretec Seminars, Inc.). Foretec was founded in 1997, in anticipation of the Secretariat becoming self-supporting. CNRI and its subsidiary have continued to improve the operation of the Secretariat, as appropriate, and maintain a trained staff.
董事和工作组主席。CNRI承担IETF秘书处实质性工作的运营责任。1998年，为了减少活动的间接费用，对秘书处进行了重组，将包括IETF执行董事在内的秘书处员工安置在一家CNRI盈利性子公司（Foretec研讨会公司）。Foretec成立于1997年，期望秘书处能够自给自足。国家研究所及其附属机构继续酌情改进秘书处的运作，并维持一支训练有素的工作人员队伍。
USC/ISI: The role of the RFC Editor, and USC/ISI, is detailed in RFC 2555. The RFC document series is a set of technical and organizational notes about the Internet (originally the ARPANET), beginning in 1969. For 30 years, the RFC Editor was Jon Postel, a research scientist and manager in the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), with the function gradually evolving into a team headed by him. The RFC Editor activity is currently organized as a project within ISI, using the ISI infrastructure, and supported by a contract with ISOC. The RFC Editor is the publisher of RFCs and is responsible for the final editorial review of the documents, as well as the maintenance of the online repository and index of those documents.
USC/ISI：RFC编辑和USC/ISI的角色详见RFC 2555。RFC文档系列是从1969年开始的一套关于互联网（最初是ARPANET）的技术和组织说明。30年来，RFC的编辑是Jon Postel，他是南加州大学信息科学研究所（ISI）网络部门的研究科学家和经理，其职能逐渐演变为由他领导的团队。RFC编辑器活动目前作为ISI内的一个项目组织，使用ISI基础设施，并由与ISOC签订的合同提供支持。RFC编辑器是RFC的发布者，负责文档的最终编辑审查，以及维护这些文档的在线存储库和索引。
ICANN: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed in 1998 to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA (at ISI) and other entities.
ICANN：互联网名称和数字分配公司（ICANN）是一家成立于1998年的非营利性公司，负责IP地址空间分配、协议参数分配、域名系统管理、，和根服务器系统管理功能之前由IANA（at ISI）和其他实体根据美国政府合同执行。
The support picture (who does what) can be described as follows:
支持图片（谁做什么）可以描述如下：
Secretariat at Foretec/CNRI
Foretec/CNRI秘书处
IESG Support IAB Support (working document management) WG Support Community Support IETF meetings
IESG支持IAB支持（工作文件管理）工作组支持社区支持IETF会议
RFC Editor at USC/ISI
USC/ISI的RFC编辑器
[Supported by ISOC, based on a contract between USC/ISI and ISOC]
[由ISOC支持，基于USC/ISI和ISOC之间的合同]
RFC publication Maintenance of standards status record
RFC出版物标准状态记录的维护
IANA/ICANN
IANA/ICANN
[Relationship defined by Memorandum of Understanding: RFC 2860]
[谅解备忘录定义的关系：RFC 2860]
Protocol parameter registry
协议参数注册表
ISOC
ISOC
IAB Support (Telechats) Funds RFC Editor Misc IAB/IESG expenses Provides insurance for IAB, IESG, WG chairs, etc.
IAB支持（Telechats）基金RFC编辑杂项IAB/IESG费用为IAB、IESG、WG主席等提供保险。
The available resources to support these activities are:
支持这些活动的现有资源包括：
Meeting fees -- through Foretec ISOC members' contributions for standards ICANN for IANA Volunteers/their employers (where applicable):
会议费用——通过Foretec ISOC成员为IANA志愿者/其雇主提供的ICANN标准捐款（如适用）：
IETF participants WG chairs Document editors IETF NomCom IESG IAB IAB ExecDir
IETF参与者工作组主持文件编辑IETF NomCom IESG IAB IAB ExecDir
The AdvComm noted several properties of the current IETF organizational environment that cause stress in the system. These have been noted both from the point of view of the IETF leadership as well as that of organizations supporting the IETF.
AdvComm注意到当前IETF组织环境的几个特性，这些特性会在系统中造成压力。从IETF领导层的角度以及支持IETF的组织的角度都注意到了这些问题。
The current IETF funding and operational structure is dependent on IETF meeting attendance. Therefore, the most obvious stressor that has emerged within the last two years is the decline in that attendance. This trend, which has continued unabated, has resulted in a decline in IETF revenue (detailed in the IETF chair presentation at IETF 56 [2]), even as the requirements of the IETF operation are remaining constant or increasing.
目前的IETF资金和运营结构取决于IETF会议出席情况。因此，在过去两年中出现的最明显的压力源是出勤率的下降。尽管IETF运行的要求保持不变或不断增加，但这一趋势并未减弱，导致IETF收入下降（详见IETF主席在IETF 56[2]上的介绍）。
The result has been a budget deficit for operations which began in 2002, and is forecasted to continue until at least 2004, even after a substantial increase in meeting fees. The continuing deficits have depleted working capital, making the IETF less robust against potential future budgetary disappointments.
其结果是2002年开始的业务预算赤字，预计至少将持续到2004年，即使会议费大幅增加。持续的赤字耗尽了营运资本，使得IETF在未来可能出现的预算失望面前变得不那么强大。
The financial stress is real, but the IETF leadership has noted several other stressors that are impediments to finding and implementing solutions to the fiscal issues. Some obvious solutions are not implementable in the current IETF structure.
财政压力是真实存在的，但IETF领导层已经注意到了一些其他压力源，这些压力源阻碍了寻找和实施财政问题的解决方案。一些明显的解决方案在当前的IETF结构中无法实现。
The rest of the stressors listed in this section should be understood as issues for which relief is necessary, particularly in the light of needing to properly address and implement solutions to the financial stress.
本节列出的其他压力源应理解为需要缓解的问题，特别是考虑到需要适当解决和实施财务压力解决方案。
The current documentation of IETF processes and structure is, in places, vague about the distribution of responsibility for management and oversight of the IETF administrative relationships. This makes it opaque to the IETF community, and sometimes leaves the leadership in a poor position to manage effectively.
IETF流程和结构的当前文件在某些地方对IETF行政关系的管理和监督责任分配含糊不清。这使得IETF社区对其不透明，有时会使领导层处于不利地位，无法进行有效管理。
Additionally, the informality of the relationships with some of the organizations that are carrying out key IETF functions compounds the problem of determining who has responsibility, and how IETF community consensus and desires are reflected in the activity.
此外，与执行关键IETF职能的一些组织之间的非正式关系加剧了确定谁有责任以及如何在活动中反映IETF社区共识和愿望的问题。
As a separate issue, important IETF institutional memory is recorded nowhere other than peoples' minds in many cases -- which requires significant transmission of oral history for IETF leadership transition to be effective.
作为一个单独的问题，在许多情况下，重要的IETF机构记忆只记录在人们的头脑中——这需要口述历史的重要传播，IETF领导层的转变才能有效。
Apart from the institutional memory, other important IETF institutional records are spread across various organizations, and searching for the set of relevant documentation (especially when this is necessary long after the recording) can be challenging.
除了机构记忆之外，其他重要的IETF机构记录分布在各个组织中，搜索相关文件集（尤其是在记录后很长一段时间内有必要这样做时）可能是一项挑战。
Another stressor relates to the need to scale support processes in terms of reducing latency for mechanical processes. That is, a decrease in the amount of manual labor required for the simpler tasks between the organizations, would make more resources available to focus on the special cases. Lack of automation in the basic request services has been known to cause undue delay or failure in processing simple, routine tasks. However, automation also requires resources and significant management in order to make sure it fulfills the community's requirements.
另一个压力源涉及到需要扩展支持过程，以减少机械过程的延迟。也就是说，减少组织之间的简单任务所需的体力劳动量，将使更多的资源用于关注特殊情况。众所周知，基本请求服务缺乏自动化会导致在处理简单的常规任务时出现不适当的延迟或失败。然而，自动化还需要资源和重要的管理，以确保它满足社区的需求。
Supporting organizations report difficulties in determining authoritative channels for directions -- either too many inputs, or no clear authority for resolution of change requests.
支持组织报告在确定指导的权威渠道方面存在困难——要么输入太多，要么没有明确的权限来解决变更请求。
In the absence of written agreements, supporting organizations may not be clear from whom to take direction. Even where agreements exist, the authority to provide direction may not be clear. The genesis of both problems is that the IETF relies on external bodies for support, but does not have sufficiently clear external relationships to allow it to provide input as to its requirements or direction on what services it desires.
在没有书面协议的情况下，支持组织可能不清楚应该向谁寻求指导。即使存在协议，提供方向的权力也可能不明确。这两个问题的根源在于IETF依赖于外部机构提供支持，但没有足够明确的外部关系，使其能够就所需服务的需求或方向提供输入。
This section attempts to capture a snapshot of the current state of the IETF organization, without undue fixation on the causes for arriving at the current state. However, it seems clear from the observations that the current state does not provide an adequate structure from which to reach into the future: some changes are needed within the IETF administrative and executive structure.
本节试图捕捉IETF组织当前状态的快照，而不过分关注达到当前状态的原因。然而，从观察结果来看，目前的状态似乎没有提供一个足够的结构，从中可以进入未来：IETF的行政和执行结构需要一些改变。
3. Stand Facing the Future: Requirements for a Successful IETF Administration
3. 面向未来：IETF成功管理的要求
This section follows the set of observations with a set of requirements for a properly-functioning IETF administrative structure. These requirements are offered as the AdvComm's description of what the IETF needs, without addressing immediately the degree to which they are available with the current environment. That is, these are "requirements", not "requirements for change".
本节遵循一组观察结果，并对IETF管理结构的正常运行提出了一组要求。这些要求作为AdvComm对IETF需求的描述提供，而没有立即说明它们在当前环境中的可用程度。也就是说，这些是“要求”，而不是“变更要求”。
The IETF has operated in times of financial wealth and times of economic cutbacks in the industry. It is reasonable to expect that the future holds similarly variable trends. Therefore, it is important that the IETF organization has the ability to make the decisions to match its needs at a given point in time, i.e., budgetary autonomy. At this particular moment, there are hard choices to make, and the AdvComm believes that it is the IETF leadership, with the advice and consent of the IETF community, that needs to make them.
IETF在该行业的金融财富和经济缩减时期运作。我们有理由期待未来也会有类似的变化趋势。因此，IETF组织有能力在给定时间点（即预算自主权）做出符合其需求的决策，这一点很重要。在这个特殊的时刻，需要做出艰难的选择，AdvComm认为，需要做出这些选择的是IETF领导层，需要得到IETF社区的建议和同意。
The IETF is currently supported by money from multiple sources, including meeting fees, donations from interested corporate and non-corporate entities, and donations in kind of equipment or manpower. The IETF needs to be able to consider all sources of income, and all expenses involved in running the IETF, as pieces of one budget, to be free to adjust all items on the occasions when the income from the different sources varies, and to allocate funds as reasonably required.
IETF目前由多种来源的资金支持，包括会议费、感兴趣的公司和非公司实体的捐赠以及实物设备或人力的捐赠。IETF需要能够考虑所有的收入来源，以及参与IETF的所有费用，作为一个预算的一部分，当不同来源的收入变化时，可以自由调整所有项目，并合理地分配资金。
The usual caveats apply: that donations not threaten the independence of the IETF, and that donations are easier when they are tax deductible.
通常需要注意的是：捐赠不会威胁IETF的独立性，而且捐赠可以免税时更容易。
While the IETF needs to be able to manage its revenue streams against its expense expectations, it also needs to respect the needs of supporting organizations to manage their own affairs. That is, the text above does not suggest that the IETF should micro-manage the financial affairs of supporting organizations.
虽然IETF需要能够根据其费用预期管理其收入流，但它也需要尊重支持组织管理其自身事务的需要。也就是说，上述文本并不建议IETF微观管理支持组织的财务事务。
However, the very clear requirement is for clarity in the distribution of rights, responsibilities, and accountability in those relationships. The usual mechanism for documenting such clarity is in contract form. Thus, the IETF needs to have clear contractual relationships with the organizations supporting basic services, including meeting organization, secretarial services, IT services, etc.
然而，非常明确的要求是明确这些关系中的权利、责任和问责制的分配。记录这种清晰性的通常机制是合同形式。因此，IETF需要与支持基本服务的组织建立明确的合同关系，包括会议组织、秘书服务、IT服务等。
The IETF needs to be able to raise money for, and fund the development of, additional services as appropriate. This includes the development of tools for participants, repository management, etc.
IETF需要能够适当地为额外服务筹集资金并为其开发提供资金。这包括为参与者开发工具、存储库管理等。
The IETF's needs should be met with the minimum of overhead. This implies that there needs to be the possibility of combining work efforts where appropriate, and generally avoiding duplication of effort.
IETF的需求应以最小的开销得到满足。这意味着需要有可能在适当的情况下合并工作，并通常避免重复工作。
The requirements described below focus primarily on the needs of the IETF administration on a day-to-day basis. However, responsible management includes stewardship for future IETF work.
以下描述的要求主要关注IETF管理部门的日常需求。然而，负责任的管理包括对未来IETF工作的管理。
The IETF needs to be responsible for changing its administrative structure to meet the community's evolving needs. As such, the administration needs to remain uniquely accountable to the IETF community.
IETF需要负责改变其管理结构，以满足社区不断变化的需求。因此，管理部门需要对IETF社区保持独特的责任感。
This also means that the distribution of responsibilities must be clear to the IETF community, in order to permit it to comment on current actions or future plans, and also to allow it to take action when its needs are not being adequately addressed.
这也意味着IETF社区必须明确责任分配，以便对当前行动或未来计划发表意见，并在其需求未得到充分解决时采取行动。
An implication of this is that responsibility for financial management within the IETF needs to sit with individuals who are accountable within the IETF organizational structure.
这意味着IETF内的财务管理责任需要由IETF组织结构内负责的个人承担。
Much of the work of the IETF is focused on reaching decisions and declaring closure. However, responsibility does not stop with the declaration of completion. There are any number of reasons that history must be adequately documented so that future work can review substantive records, and not rely on oral history.
IETF的大部分工作集中于达成决策和宣布结束。然而，责任并不会随着完成声明而停止。有许多理由认为，必须充分记录历史，以便今后的工作能够审查实质性记录，而不是依赖口述历史。
Therefore, the IETF needs to maintain and support the archiving of all of its working documents in a way that continues to be accessible, for all current and future IETF workers.
因此，IETF需要维护和支持其所有工作文件的归档，以便所有当前和未来的IETF工作人员能够继续访问。
Part of the job of administering the IETF is identifying and ensuring the continued support of the tools and working environment necessary to support the ongoing activity.
IETF管理工作的一部分是确定并确保持续支持支持正在进行的活动所需的工具和工作环境。
Wherever human judgment is not required in order to complete an action, services should be automated to provide the most friction-free path and minimal delay in completing the action.
如果完成一项行动不需要人工判断，则应自动提供服务，以提供最无摩擦的路径，并将完成行动的延迟降至最低。
More processes could be accomplished without requiring human judgment. Wherever possible, these processes should be identified, clarified, and automated.
在不需要人工判断的情况下，可以完成更多的过程。在可能的情况下，应识别、澄清和自动化这些过程。
Note that this is not intended to imply ALL processes should be automated! Rather, by reducing the friction incurred in steps that are truly mechanical, more time and energy will be available to properly treat those that require individual judgment.
请注意，这并不意味着所有流程都应该自动化！相反，通过减少在真正机械的步骤中产生的摩擦，将有更多的时间和精力来正确处理那些需要个人判断的步骤。
Whether housed in an IETF-supported location or offered by individual contribution, the PROBLEM WG has identified the need for more tool support for working groups and specification development. The IETF needs to be able to identify, develop and support an adequately rich, consistent set of tools for getting the standards work done.
无论是在IETF支持的地点，还是由个人贡献提供，问题工作组已确定需要为工作组和规范开发提供更多的工具支持。IETF需要能够识别、开发和支持一套足够丰富、一致的工具，以完成标准工作。
The Advisory Committee discussed the material and observations, described in this document, at great length. To the AdvComm, it appeared clear that some level of IETF administration organizational change is needed to address the stressors and meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 3.
咨询委员会详细讨论了本文件所述的材料和意见。在AdvComm看来，显然需要某种程度的IETF管理组织变革来应对压力源并满足第3节中概述的所有要求。
In order to ensure an IETF structure that is capable of meeting the requirements outlined above, the AdvComm recommends that the IETF be more formally organized. This would allow the IETF to take full responsibility for, and management of, the resources required to accomplish its work (as described in Section 3.1), provide and maintain the necessary work environment for current work (as described in Section 3.3), and provide appropriate stewardship of the institutional information required for all aspects of current and future work of the organization (as described in Section 3.2).
为了确保IETF结构能够满足上述要求，AdvComm建议IETF的组织更加正式。这将允许IETF全权负责和管理完成其工作（如第3.1节所述）所需的资源，为当前工作提供和维护必要的工作环境（如第3.3节所述），并对组织当前和未来工作所有方面所需的机构信息进行适当管理（如第3.2节所述）。
Some proposed models for establishing such a formalized effort are described in the following sections. Some of the key expectations, irrespective of the final implementation of formalism, are:
以下各节介绍了建立这种形式化工作的一些拟议模型。不管形式主义最终如何实施，一些关键期望是：
o the administration of the IETF would remain accountable to the IETF leadership and community; the goal would be to ensure that lines of responsibility and accountability were clearer;
o IETF的管理将继续对IETF领导层和社区负责；目标是确保责任线和问责制更加明确；
o this formalized IETF would be responsible for managing financial resources (revenue and expenses) directly;
o 这个正式的IETF将直接负责管理财务资源（收入和支出）；
o this formalized IETF would be directly signatory to agreements with other organizations, and would therefore be able to negotiate and administer any appropriate contracts;
o 这一正式的IETF将直接签署与其他组织的协议，因此将能够谈判和管理任何适当的合同；
o however implemented, this would require a small staff complement (e.g., one full-time person) responsible to no other organization than the one chartered with the IETF's mission;
o 无论如何实施，这将需要一小部分人员（例如，一名全职人员）对IETF任务特许组织以外的任何其他组织负责；
o nevertheless, it remains a non-goal to create an organizational entity that exists simply for the purpose of continuing to exist. This should be executed with the minimum formality needed in order to address the identified requirements.
o 然而，创建一个仅仅为了继续存在而存在的组织实体仍然是一个非目标。应以满足确定需求所需的最低形式执行。
An important question is: what does this proposed formalization provide that cannot be provided by the status quo? The AdvComm believes that an appropriately implemented formalization of the IETF would permit the unification of the resource management, decision making and stewardship that is imperative to providing clarity and ensuring a viable future for the IETF. The AdvComm further believes that this is simply not possible to implement within the existing distributed and informal arrangement of responsibilities.
一个重要的问题是：这一提议的形式化提供了什么现状无法提供的东西？AdvComm认为，适当实施IETF的正式化将允许统一资源管理、决策和管理，这对于提供清晰性和确保IETF的可行未来至关重要。AdvComm进一步认为，在现有的分布式和非正式责任安排中，这根本不可能实现。
Naturally, the act of forming such an organization does not immediately satisfy the requirements outlined in Section 3. It is not a silver bullet. Changing the formal structure will not, for example, change the financial status of the IETF. However, the AdvComm believes it would provide the necessary basis from which the required decisions could be made and acted upon.
当然，组建这样一个组织的行为并不能立即满足第3节中概述的要求。这不是一颗银弹。例如，改变正式结构不会改变IETF的财务状况。然而，AdvComm认为，它将提供必要的基础，根据这些基础可以做出必要的决定并采取行动。
In short, the AdvComm believes that we first have to place the responsibility for defining the IETF's administrative environment with specific people who are accountable to the IETF community. Then these people can take the detailed decisions that will change the IETF's administrative environment to fulfill its requirements.
简言之，AdvComm认为，我们首先必须将定义IETF管理环境的责任交给向IETF社区负责的特定人员。然后这些人可以做出详细的决定，改变IETF的管理环境以满足其要求。
Section 4.1 was deliberately vague on the nature of the formal organizational entity that might provide the proper environment, focusing instead on the key components of any implementation of such a formalization, and how the formalization activity would address the requirements laid out in Section 3.
第4.1节故意对可能提供适当环境的正式组织实体的性质含糊其辞，而是将重点放在此类正式化实施的关键组成部分，以及正式化活动将如何满足第3节中规定的要求。
Having thus determined that formalization of the IETF is seen as a necessary step, the basic framework for 3 potential implementations of it are described below. Note that these are not complete proposals, nor is enough detail available to recommend a particular path. The IETF leadership might select one to explore in greater detail, to formulate an action proposal with sufficient detail to make a decision to act.
因此，确定IETF的形式化被视为一个必要步骤，下面描述了IETF的3个潜在实现的基本框架。请注意，这些都不是完整的建议，也没有足够的细节来推荐特定的路径。IETF领导层可能会选择一个进行更详细的探索，以制定一个足够详细的行动建议，从而做出行动决策。
The IETF is organized as an activity of the Internet Society. One potential path for increased formalism of the IETF's administration would be to further define that relationship. This model anticipates dedication of ISOC personnel to form the "small staff complement", and would make ISOC responsible for all of the IETF's financial resources and expenses.
IETF是作为互联网协会的一项活动组织的。IETF管理形式主义增加的一个潜在途径是进一步定义这种关系。该模式预计ISOC人员将投入使用，形成“小型人员补充”，并使ISOC负责IETF的所有财务资源和费用。
This approach should be relatively straightforward to implement, given ISOC's existing legal relationship with the IETF activity, and its status as signatory for IETF-related contracts (e.g., RFC Editor).
考虑到ISOC与IETF活动的现有法律关系，以及其作为IETF相关合同签署人的身份（如RFC编辑器），该方法的实施应该相对简单。
This proposal is consistent with the goal of minimizing the amount of formalization needed to meet the requirements of the IETF.
该提案与最小化满足IETF要求所需的形式化数量的目标一致。
However, the general mission of ISOC is broader than the standardization activity of the IETF, and the ISOC Board of Trustees must stay focused on apportioning resources to meet that broader mission. Would this approach allow the clear lines of responsibility that are called for in Section 3?
然而，ISOC的总体任务比IETF的标准化活动更广泛，ISOC董事会必须始终专注于分配资源以满足更广泛的任务。该方法是否允许第3节中要求的明确责任线？
A modification of the proposal of housing the IETF central body within ISOC is to create a legal not-for-profit subsidiary of ISOC, with a mandate that is specifically focused on the IETF's mission. This subsidiary would become the legal entity responsible for managing the IETF's resources and expenses, and would become signatory to any other legal instruments on the IETF's behalf.
将IETF中央机构纳入ISOC的提案的一项修改是，创建一个合法的非营利子公司，该子公司的任务是专门针对IETF的任务。该子公司将成为负责管理IETF资源和费用的法律实体，并将代表IETF签署任何其他法律文书。
As a distinct legal entity in its own right, the subsidiary would be independently responsible for achieving its mission. That level of independence addresses the concern raised against the notion of further formalizing the IETF within ISOC directly -- that the IETF mission might be disrupted by the organization's need to tend to other aspects of ISOC's broader mission. The role of the IETF community, and the ISOC parent, in defining and supporting that mission would be spelled out in the creation of the legal body.
作为一个独立的法律实体，子公司将独立负责完成其使命。这种独立性水平解决了人们对直接在ISOC内进一步正式化IETF概念的担忧，即IETF任务可能会因组织需要倾向于ISOC更广泛任务的其他方面而中断。IETF社区和ISOC母公司在定义和支持该任务方面的作用将在法律机构的创建中阐明。
The IETF might additionally consider what the most appropriate governance model would be for this approach. If it is desirable to remove some of the administrative burden from the IESG and IAB, such a subsidiary might have its own Board of Trustees, composed of members appointed by IETF and ISOC. Such a Board would be responsible for reviewing activities and ensuring that the organization's efforts were adequately in line with its mission, its finances were in order, and so on. The subsidiary would report to its Board of Trustees. Other governance models are certainly possible, and a Board of Trustees is not a requirement for this approach.
IETF还可以考虑最合适的治理模式是什么。如果希望消除IESG和IAB的一些行政负担，则此类子公司可能有自己的董事会，由IETF和ISOC任命的成员组成。这样一个委员会将负责审查各项活动，并确保本组织的努力充分符合其任务，其财务状况良好，等等。该子公司将向其董事会报告。其他治理模式当然是可能的，而且这种方法不需要董事会。
At the same time, as a subsidiary organization, the expectation is that the relationship with ISOC would remain a close one: the subsidiary would benefit from ISOC's existing infrastructure and support (a conservative approach to adding formalism and structural overhead to the IETF activity), while the relationship would continue to provide a channel for the IETF to support ISOC in achieving that broader mission, with continued contribution of technical expertise and support of activities.
同时，作为一个附属组织，我们期望与ISOC保持密切的关系：该附属公司将受益于ISOC现有的基础设施和支持（一种保守的方法，将形式主义和结构开销添加到IETF活动中），尽管这种关系将继续为IETF提供一个渠道，支持ISOC完成更广泛的任务，继续提供技术专长和活动支持。
This approach would require more work to create than simply housing the work at ISOC. The subsidiary would have to be created and rights/responsibilities adjusted between it and ISOC in order to ensure that both have the necessary resources and frameworks to carry out their missions.
这种方法需要更多的工作来创建，而不仅仅是将工作安置在ISOC。必须建立子公司，并在其与ISOC之间调整权利/责任，以确保两者都拥有执行其任务所需的资源和框架。
To complete the picture, a third option has to be considered. Instead of creating a subsidiary of ISOC as a separate legal entity, an entirely new legal entity, "IETF, Inc.", or "IETF, LLC", could be created for the sole purpose of managing IETF administrative activities.
为了完成这幅图，必须考虑第三种选择。可以创建一个全新的法律实体“IETF，Inc.”或“IETF，LLC”，以管理IETF管理活动，而不是将ISOC的子公司作为单独的法律实体创建。
This would offer the IETF complete autonomy with all the attendant rights and responsibilities. In particular, an independent IETF would at a minimum, need to operate much like a startup for the first few years of its existence, with all the related financing and growth issues, and survival risks. Given all the organizational change taking place within the IETF during the same period, the AdvComm believes that the financial and political risks of such an approach should not be under-estimated.
这将为IETF提供完全的自主权以及所有伴随的权利和责任。特别是，一个独立的IETF至少需要在其存在的最初几年内像初创企业一样运作，包括所有相关的融资和增长问题以及生存风险。鉴于IETF在同一时期内发生的所有组织变革，AdvComm认为不应低估这种方法的财务和政治风险。
For example, it would be necessary for the IETF to obtain initial working capital sufficient to handle the commitments for the first few meetings. While it would be conceivable to raise working capital from advance meeting fees, such a financing plan would not leave much
例如，IETF有必要获得足够的初始运营资本，以处理前几次会议的承诺。虽然可以从预付会议费中筹集营运资金，但这样的融资计划不会留下太多资金
margin for error; were one or more of the initial meetings to run in the red, the survival of a fledgling IETF could be in jeopardy. Given the economic environment, it probably should not be assumed that working capital could be raised purely from corporate donations, especially during an initial period in which staff required to solicit and manage donations would not be available.
误差幅度；如果最初的一次或多次会议出现赤字，一个初出茅庐的IETF的生存可能会受到威胁。考虑到经济环境，可能不应假定营运资本可以纯粹从公司捐款中筹集，特别是在最初阶段，没有必要征求和管理捐款的工作人员。
Additionally, the impact that such a move would have on ISOC's ability to carry out its mission and the IETF's standing with governmental organizations needs to be considered.
此外，需要考虑这一举措对ISOC执行任务的能力以及IETF在政府组织中的地位的影响。
The AdvComm believes that the IETF leadership, acting with the advice and consent of the IETF community and ISOC, have the ability and the responsibility to act on the recommendation to formalize the IETF.
AdvComm认为，IETF领导层在IETF社区和ISOC的建议和同意下，有能力和责任根据建议采取行动，使IETF正式化。
This document does not describe any technical protocols and has no implications for network security.
本文件不描述任何技术协议，也不涉及网络安全。
The AdvComm sincerely appreciates the time, effort and care of the RFC Editor, IANA, Secretariat and Secretariat organizations in providing input, responding to the AdvComm's questions, and reviewing/correcting the consultation text shown here in the appendixes.
AdvComm衷心感谢RFC编辑、IANA、秘书处和秘书处组织在提供投入、回答AdvComm的问题以及审查/纠正附录中所示的咨询文本方面付出的时间、努力和关心。
The members of the IAB Advisory Committee that prepared this report were:
编写本报告的IAB咨询委员会成员包括：
o Bernard Aboba o Harald Alvestrand (IETF Chair) o Lynn St.Amour (ISOC President) o Fred Baker (Chair, ISOC Board of Trustees) o Brian Carpenter o Steve Crocker o Leslie Daigle (IAB Chair, chair of the committee) o Russ Housley o John Klensin
o Bernard Aboba o Harald Alvestrand（IETF主席）o Lynn St.Amour（ISOC主席）o Fred Baker（ISOC董事会主席）o Brian Carpenter o Steve Crocker o Leslie Daigle（IAB主席，委员会主席）o Russ Housley o John Klesins
[1] Hoffman, P. and S. Bradner, "Defining the IETF", BCP 58, RFC 3233, February 2002.
[1] Hoffman，P.和S.Bradner，“定义IETF”，BCP 58，RFC 3233，2002年2月。
[2] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Chair plenary presentation, http:// www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/plenary-3/index.html", March 2003.
[2] Alvestrand，H.，“IETF主席全体会议介绍，http://www.IETF.org/procedures/03mar/slides/communion-3/index.html”，2003年3月。
[3] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997.
[3] Postel，J.和J.Reynolds，“RFC作者须知”，RFC 2223，1997年10月。
[4] Reynolds, J. and B. Braden, Eds., "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", Work in Progress.
[4] Reynolds，J.和B.Braden编辑，“征求意见书（RFC）作者须知”，正在进行的工作。
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:34:58 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle
Subject: Formation of IAB Advisory Committee
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:34:58 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle
Subject: Formation of IAB Advisory Committee
To: IETF-Announce: ;
I would like to announce the formation of an IAB advisory committee, as described below.
我想宣布成立IAB咨询委员会，如下所述。
Thanks, Leslie, for the IAB.
谢谢你，莱斯利，谢谢你的检查。
=================
=================
IAB Advisory Committee on IETF Administration Relationships
IAB IETF管理关系咨询委员会
The purpose of the committee is to review the existing IETF administration relationships (RFC Editor, IETF Secretariat, etc.) and propose IETF management process or structural changes that would improve the overall functioning of the IETF. Any such proposal will be subject to review and acceptance by the IAB and IETF plenary. Note that the scope of the advisory committee does NOT include proposed changes to the standards development processes (e.g., WG organization, IESG management of documents or working groups, etc.).
委员会的目的是审查现有的IETF管理关系（RFC编辑、IETF秘书处等），并提出IETF管理流程或结构变更，以改善IETF的整体运作。任何此类提案将由IAB和IETF全体会议审查和接受。请注意，咨询委员会的范围不包括对标准制定过程的拟议变更（例如，工作组组织、IESG文件管理或工作组等）。
The committee is chaired by the IAB Chair, Leslie Daigle, and consists of:
委员会由IAB主席Leslie Daigle担任主席，成员包括：
o Bernard Aboba o Harald Alvestrand (IETF Chair) o Lynn St.Amour (ISOC President) o Fred Baker (Chair, ISOC Board of Trustees) o Brian Carpenter o Steve Crocker o Leslie Daigle (IAB Chair, chair of the committee) o Russ Housley o John Klensin
o Bernard Aboba o Harald Alvestrand（IETF主席）o Lynn St.Amour（ISOC主席）o Fred Baker（ISOC董事会主席）o Brian Carpenter o Steve Crocker o Leslie Daigle（IAB主席，委员会主席）o Russ Housley o John Klesins
Additional input is welcome. The committee will also make a particular effort to seek out further input as needed. --
欢迎提供更多信息。委员会还将作出特别努力，根据需要寻求进一步的投入--
Input contributed by Harald Alvestrand (IETF Chair) and Leslie Daigle (IAB Chair).
Harald Alvestrand（IETF主席）和Leslie Daigle（IAB主席）提供的意见。
Looking at the administrative overview of the IETF activity, there are a number of things that work well:
从IETF活动的管理概述来看，有很多方面都很有效：
o support organizations are committed to the work of the IETF;
o 支持组织致力于IETF的工作；
o the volunteers of the IETF WGs can (mostly) concentrate on their engineering work, not economics;
o IETF工作组的志愿者可以（大部分）专注于他们的工程工作，而不是经济工作；
o money has (so far) been sufficient to cover the costs.
o 到目前为止，钱已经足够支付这些费用了。
However, there are also a number of challenges:
然而，也存在一些挑战：
o lack of persistent records of the whole organization's efforts -- of working documents, meeting materials, communications. Also,
o 缺乏整个组织工作的持续记录——工作文件、会议材料、通信。而且
* lack of organization of records -- even when data is stored, it can be hard or impossible to access when no longer current (e.g., it may reside on some former WG chair's hard drive)
* 缺乏记录组织——即使存储了数据，当数据不再是最新数据时，也可能很难或无法访问（例如，它可能位于某位前工作组主席的硬盘上）
* history records are kept spottily (lists of wg chairs and old versions of charters, to mention some);
* 历史记录保存得杂乱无章（工作组主席名单和章程的旧版本等等）；
o few safeguards against the "hit by a bus" problem -- much information about relationships is not documented, and must be transferred as oral tradition. This means that significant overlap is needed when personnel changes;
o 很少有防范“被公车撞到”问题的措施——很多关于人际关系的信息都没有记录在案，必须以口头方式传递。这意味着，当人员变动时，需要重大重叠；
o IETF leadership responsibilities are not clearly identified -- typically handled by IETF and IAB Chairs, with some advice and consent from IESG and IAB, but that makes it possible to challenge every change decision;
o IETF领导职责未明确确定——通常由IETF和IAB主席处理，并获得IESG和IAB的一些建议和同意，但这使得质疑每一项变更决策成为可能；
o contracts do not clearly identify responsibility for executive direction. Some contractual relationships are not documented, or are not visible to the IETF leadership;
o 合同没有明确规定行政领导的责任。一些合同关系没有记录，或IETF领导层看不到；
o variable, and often unclear, documentation of responsibilities between IETF leadership and other organizations. This makes it hard to determine how and where to discuss and effect improvements for the IETF that affect one or more support organization's activity;
o IETF领导层和其他组织之间的责任记录不定，且往往不明确。这使得难以确定如何以及在何处讨论和实施影响一个或多个支持组织活动的IETF改进；
o unclear budgeting responsibilities -- the IETF leadership has to make decisions that will impact the revenues and costs of the supporting organizations, but the supporting organizations wear the direct effects of revenue and cost control. Information about the financial impact of decisions are not available to IETF leadership;
o 预算责任不明确——IETF领导层必须做出影响支持组织收入和成本的决策，但支持组织承担着收入和成本控制的直接影响。IETF领导层无法获得有关决策财务影响的信息；
o partitioned finances -- it's not possible for the IETF to make changes that would affect the balance of revenue and costs across the revenue sources/expense commitments. For example, raising meeting fees wouldn't pay for more RFC Editor resources; more support from ISOC doesn't address any needs for IETF working group support functions;
o 划分财务——IETF不可能做出影响收入来源/支出承诺之间收入和成本平衡的更改。例如，提高会议费用并不能支付更多的RFC编辑资源；ISOC提供的更多支持不能满足IETF工作组支持功能的任何需求；
o the lack of clarity and the partitioning make it very hard for the IETF leadership, and the community as a whole, to determine points of accountability and implement changes for a healthy future.
o 由于缺乏明确性和划分，IETF领导层和整个社区很难确定责任点并为健康的未来实施变革。
Appendix C. Consultation with ISI: RFC Editor
附录C.与ISI的协商：RFC编辑
Note: "RFC2223bis" in the text below refers to RFC 2223bis [4], a work in progress to update RFC 2223 [3].
注：下文中的“RFC2223bis”指的是RFC 2223bis[4]，这是更新RFC 2223[3]的一项正在进行的工作。
Responses to Questions from IAB Advisory Committee for the RFC Editor
对IAB咨询委员会向RFC编辑提出的问题的回答
October 6, 2003
二○○三年十月六日
* * (1) Your description of the function you are performing. Is * that function, and its relationship to the IETF, adequately * described in RFC 2223bis, or is additional description * required? If the latter, what would you suggest?
* *（1）您对正在执行的功能的描述。RFC 2223bis中是否充分描述了该功能及其与IETF的关系，或者是否需要额外的描述？如果是后者，你有什么建议？
ANSWER:
答复:
A comprehensive summary of current RFC Editor functions is attached below. Note that this list has no direct relation to RFC 2223bis, which contains instructions to RFC authors.
下面附上当前RFC编辑器功能的综合摘要。请注意，此列表与RFC2223BIS没有直接关系，后者包含对RFC作者的说明。
* * (2) What staff is being used to perform these functions and * what are their particular skills for doing so (either * individually or in the aggregate)? *
* *（2）正在使用哪些员工来履行这些职能，以及*他们在履行这些职能方面的特殊技能是什么（单独或合计）*
ANSWER:
答复:
For 30 years, the RFC Editor was Jon Postel, a research scientist and manager in the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI). It is currently organized as a project within ISI, using the ISI infrastructure. The following ISI staff members comprise the RFC Editor project:
30年来，RFC的编辑是Jon Postel，他是南加州大学信息科学研究所（ISI）网络部门的研究科学家和经理。目前，它是作为ISI内部的一个项目组织的，使用ISI基础设施。以下ISI工作人员组成RFC编辑器项目：
Joyce Reynolds 100% Bob Braden 10% Aaron Falk 10% Sandy Ginoza 100% Project Assistant 100% Graduate Research Asst. 50%
乔伊斯·雷诺兹100%鲍勃·布拉登10%艾伦·福尔克10%桑迪·吉诺莎100%项目助理100%研究生研究助理50%
Braden and Reynolds jointly manage the RFC Editor project, with oversight of personnel and budgets.
Braden和Reynolds共同管理RFC编辑器项目，监督人员和预算。
Joyce Reynolds has been contributing her editorial and management skills to the Internet since 1979. She performed the IANA functions under Jon Postel's direction from 1983 until Postel's death in October 1998. She continued to perform the IANA protocol parameter tasks on loan from ISI to ICANN, from 1998 to 2001. She was IANA liaison to the IESG from 1998 to 2001, transitioning the role to Michelle Cotton in the 2001.
自1979年以来，乔伊斯·雷诺兹一直在为互联网贡献她的编辑和管理技能。1983年至1998年10月，她在Jon Postel的指导下执行IANA职能。1998年至2001年，她继续执行ISI借调给ICANN的IANA协议参数任务。1998年至2001年，她担任IANA与IESG的联络员，并在2001年将其角色过渡到Michelle Cotton。
Reynolds performed the RFC Editor functions under Jon Postel's direction from 1987 until 1998. Reynolds has been a member of the IETF since 1988, and she served as User Services Area Director on the IESG for 10 years. Reynolds now serves a liaison to the IAB and IESG. She handles the final proofing and quality control on RFCs prior to publication.
Reynolds在Jon Postel的指导下从1987年到1998年执行RFC编辑器功能。Reynolds自1988年以来一直是IETF的成员，她在IESG上担任用户服务领域总监10年。雷诺兹现在是IAB和IESG的联络人。出版前，她负责RFC的最终校对和质量控制。
Bob Braden has made many contributions to the Internet protocol technology and community. He helped design TCP/IP during the original research period beginning in 1978, and he has devoted his professional career since 1978 to the Internet. He served for 13 years on the original IAB and as its Executive Director for about 5 years. Since 1998 Braden has been co-leader of the RFC Editor project. He is the principal reviewer of individual submissions. He also works on technical issues related to the RFC Editor project.
Bob Braden对互联网协议技术和社区做出了许多贡献。在1978年开始的最初研究期间，他帮助设计了TCP/IP，自1978年以来，他一直致力于互联网的专业生涯。他在最初的IAB工作了13年，并担任了大约5年的执行董事。自1998年以来，Braden一直是RFC编辑器项目的共同领导者。他是个人意见书的主要审查人。他还处理与RFC编辑器项目相关的技术问题。
Aaron Falk is a significant player in the IETF as a Working Group chair, in the areas of transport protocols and satellite technology. On the RFC Editor team, he assists with policy questions and handles technical development, overseeing the work of the grad student programmer.
Aaron Falk是IETF的重要参与者，担任传输协议和卫星技术领域的工作组主席。在RFC编辑团队中，他协助政策问题，处理技术开发，监督研究生程序员的工作。
Sandy Ginoza is the principal technical editor. She is generally responsible for managing the RFC Editor queue and much of the day-to-day interface with the IESG and authors. Ginoza sends and receives a LOT of email, and she plays a central role in the operation.
Sandy Ginoza是首席技术编辑。她通常负责管理RFC编辑器队列以及与IESG和作者的大部分日常接口。吉诺莎收发大量电子邮件，她在这项行动中起着核心作用。
Two part-time Project Assistants, Mieke Van de Kamp and Alison De La Cruz, do editing, mark-up, and initial proofing of individual RFCs. Our goal is to have three pairs of eyes read every RFC word-for-word, and in most instances we are able to do so.
Mieke Van de Kamp和Alison de La Cruz是两名兼职项目助理，负责对单个RFC进行编辑、标记和初始校对。我们的目标是让三对眼睛逐字逐句地阅读每个RFC，在大多数情况下，我们能够做到这一点。
A half-time USC Graduate Research Assistant provides programming support by developing, extending, and maintaining RFC Editor scripts and tools.
一名半职的南加州大学研究生研究助理通过开发、扩展和维护RFC编辑器脚本和工具提供编程支持。
* (3) What criteria do you use to determine whether you are being * successful, and how successful? Using those criteria, how * successful are you and what could be done, especially from the * IETF side, to improve that evaluation?
* （3） 你用什么标准来决定你是否成功，以及成功的程度？使用这些标准，你的*成功程度如何，以及可以做些什么，特别是从*IETF方面，来改进评估？
ANSWER:
答复:
We can begin with a historical perspective on this question. When Jon Postel unexpectedly passed away 5 years ago, Reynolds and Braden took on the challenge of carrying on Postel's RFC Editor function. The publication stream continued, with a modest increase in quantity and, we believe, no loss of quality. Furthermore, the transition was largely invisible to the IETF. In addition, the new RFC Editor project has significantly defined and clarified the publication process, improved the web site, added tools to improve productivity and quality, and adapted the procedures to changing realities. We are proud of these achievements.
我们可以从历史的角度来看待这个问题。当Jon Postel在5年前意外去世时，Reynolds和Braden接受了继续Postel的RFC编辑器功能的挑战。出版流继续发展，数量略有增加，我们认为质量没有损失。此外，IETF基本上看不到这种转变。此外，新的RFC编辑器项目极大地定义和澄清了出版过程，改进了网站，增加了提高生产力和质量的工具，并使程序适应不断变化的现实。我们为这些成就感到自豪。
The three primary axes for measuring RFC Editor success are (1) quantity, (2) quality, and (3) accessibility.
衡量RFC编辑器成功的三个主轴是（1）数量，（2）质量和（3）可访问性。
1. Quantity
1. 量
Roughly, quantitative success means the ability to keep up with the submission rate. Since the submission rate tends to be bursty, to avoid long delays we need an average capacity somewhat in excess of the average.
粗略地说，数量上的成功意味着能够跟上提交率。由于提交率往往是突发性的，为了避免长时间的延迟，我们需要一个略高于平均值的平均容量。
RFC publication is necessarily a heavily labor-intensive process.
RFC出版必然是一个劳动密集型的过程。
Our goal is generally to complete the publication process in less than 4 weeks, exclusive of external factors beyond our control -- normative dependence upon other documents, delays by authors or the IESG, IANA delays, etc.
我们的目标通常是在不到4周的时间内完成出版过程，不包括我们无法控制的外部因素——对其他文件的规范性依赖、作者或IESG的延迟、IANA延迟等。
2. Quality
2. 质量
Publication quality is harder to measure, but "we know it when we see it." Considering quality as the absence of faults, by noting faults we can observe lack of quality.
出版质量更难衡量，但“我们看到它就知道了”。将质量视为没有缺点，通过注意缺点我们可以观察到质量的缺乏。
One measure of faults is the number of errata that appear after publication. In addition, there may be faults apparent to a reader, such as a meaningless title, confusing organization, useless Abstract, inadequate introduction, confusing formatting, bad sentences, or bad grammar. There are of course limits to our ability to repair bad writing; ultimately, quality depends upon the authors as well as the editing process.
故障的一个度量是发布后出现的勘误表的数量。此外，读者可能会发现一些明显的错误，如标题毫无意义、组织混乱、摘要无用、介绍不充分、格式混乱、句子错误或语法错误。当然，我们修复不良文字的能力是有限的；最终，质量取决于作者以及编辑过程。
The only way to maintain quality is to continually monitor our work internally, to track external complaints, and to adjust our practice to correct frequent faults. Specific faults have sometimes led us to create new tools for checking consistency, to avoid clerical errors. Sometimes they have led to new user guidelines (e.g., on abbreviations or on Abstract sections.)
保持质量的唯一方法是持续监控我们的内部工作，跟踪外部投诉，并调整我们的做法以纠正经常出现的故障。特定的错误有时会导致我们创建新的工具来检查一致性，以避免文书错误。有时，它们会产生新的用户指南（例如，缩写或摘要部分）
3. Accessibility
3. 可达性
An important part of the RFC Editor function is to provide a database for locating relevant RFCs. This is actually a very hard problem, because there is often a complex semantic web among RFCs on a particular topic. We have made great improvements in our search engine and web site, but there is undoubtedly a need for more progress in this area. The challenge is to provide better guideposts to users without creating a significant additional manpower requirement.
RFC编辑器功能的一个重要部分是提供用于定位相关RFC的数据库。这实际上是一个非常困难的问题，因为在特定主题的RFC之间通常有一个复杂的语义网。我们在搜索引擎和网站方面取得了巨大的进步，但毫无疑问，在这方面需要取得更多的进展。挑战在于为用户提供更好的路标，而不需要大量额外的人力需求。
We make heavy use of our own search and access tools, and this gives us feedback on their success and sometimes suggests improvements.
我们大量使用自己的搜索和访问工具，这为我们提供了有关其成功的反馈，有时还提出了改进建议。
Finally, we offer some specific suggestions to answer the question, "What can the IETF do to improve the RFC Editor's evaluation" (i.e., our service to the community)?
最后，我们提供了一些具体的建议来回答“IETF可以做些什么来改进RFC编辑的评估”（即我们对社区的服务）？
1. Give us better documents to publish. Many are well written and organized, but some are bad and a few are very bad and need a great deal of work to create acceptable publications. Better input documents will improve both our quantity and our quality.
1. 给我们更好的文档来发布。很多都写得很好，组织得很好，但有些写得不好，有些写得很差，需要大量的工作才能创作出可接受的出版物。更好的输入文档将提高我们的数量和质量。
The IESG has been making a large effort to improve the quality of Internet Drafts before they become RFCs, and we are very grateful for this.
IESG一直在做出巨大努力，在互联网草稿成为RFC之前提高其质量，对此我们非常感谢。
One issue of particular concern is the increasing number of RFCs authored by non-English speakers. These can consume much extra editorial effort. We don't know any solution to this problem, but we know that the IESG is aware of it and working with them to provide editorial assistance when necessary within working groups.
一个特别令人关注的问题是，越来越多的RFC由非英语使用者撰写。这些可能会消耗大量额外的编辑工作。我们不知道这个问题的任何解决方案，但我们知道IESG知道这一点，并与他们合作，在必要时在工作组内提供编辑协助。
2. Prepare a series of RFCs containing "road maps" that describe the semantic web of RFCs in a particular area. Although these would rapidly become out-dated in detail, they would still provide very important guides to RFC readers.
2. 准备一系列RFC，其中包含描述特定区域RFC语义网的“路线图”。尽管这些内容在细节上会很快过时，但它们仍然会为RFC读者提供非常重要的指南。
The RFC Editor is as self-critical as any organization could be, but we believe there is no objective basis for claiming that we are not doing a good job for the Internet. We continually strive to do a better job.
RFC编辑像任何组织一样自我批评，但我们相信没有客观的依据来宣称我们在互联网方面做得不好。我们不断努力把工作做得更好。
* * (4) How would you characterize the quality of your relationship * with the IETF and its leadership? Is there mutual trust and a * sense of working together on issues, or do you and your * colleagues sometimes see the relationship as adversarial? *
* *（4）您如何描述与IETF及其领导层的关系质量？是否存在相互信任和在问题上合作的感觉，或者你和你的同事有时会认为这种关系是敌对的*
ANSWER:
答复:
The RFC Editor shares with much of the rest of the Internet community a deep desire to advance the technology and practice of the Internet. We consider ourselves partners with the IETF, the IESG, and the IAB in this endeavor.
RFC编辑与互联网社区的许多其他人一样，都有着推进互联网技术和实践的强烈愿望。我们认为自己与IETF、IESG和IAB合作。
Although the major goals coincide, the IESG and the RFC Editor quite properly have somewhat different priorities. The RFC Editor's role, historically and currently, is to create and maintain the RFC document series as a high-quality and vital channel for technical communication, while the IESG is concerned with managing the Internet engineering and standards process. This difference sometimes leads to honest disagreements, but we have generally worked out mutually-satisfactory solutions to these conflicts.
虽然主要目标是一致的，但IESG和RFC编辑的优先级却有一些不同。过去和现在，RFC编辑的角色是创建和维护RFC文档系列，作为高质量和重要的技术沟通渠道，而IESG则负责管理互联网工程和标准流程。这种差异有时会导致真诚的分歧，但我们通常已经为这些冲突找到了双方都满意的解决方案。
The word "adversarial" seems completely inappropriate, and we are struggling to understand what could have led to its appearance here.
“对抗性”这个词似乎完全不合适，我们正在努力理解是什么导致它出现在这里。
* (5) Are there specific known problems you would like us to look * at and understand? If so, please describe them.
* （5） 您是否希望我们看到并理解一些具体的已知问题？如果是，请描述它们。
ANSWER:
答复:
(A) The length of time for IESG review and recommendations on individual submissions has sometimes become excessive. We understand the load of IESG members, but we would like to ask their help in keeping response to a few months.
（A） IESG审查和建议个人提交的时间有时过长。我们理解IESG成员的负担，但我们想请他们帮助我们在几个月内保持反应。
The RFC Editor has been attempting to raise the bar on accepting individual submissions, to avoid wasting valuable IESG time as well as to maintain (or improve) the quality of the RFC series.
RFC编辑一直试图提高接受个人提交的标准，以避免浪费宝贵的IESG时间，并保持（或提高）RFC系列的质量。
(B) We would like understanding and support of the RFC Editor's statutory and historic responsibility to publish significant technical documents about networking that originate outside the IETF standards process. This publication has several important purposes.
（B） 我们希望理解并支持RFC编辑的法定和历史责任，即发布有关源自IETF标准过程之外的网络的重要技术文件。本出版物有几个重要目的。
One is to bring out new technical ideas for consideration and discussion. We believe that the future success of the Internet demands an infusion of new ideas (or old ideas revitalized), and that the publication of such ideas as RFCs is important.
一是提出新的技术观点供考虑和讨论。我们认为，互联网未来的成功需要注入新思想（或振兴旧思想），而将这些思想公布为RFC是很重要的。
Another purpose is to build a shared literature of mature technical discussion, to help avoid the periodic re-discussions that take place on our mailing lists.
另一个目的是建立一个成熟技术讨论的共享文献，以帮助避免邮件列表上发生的定期重新讨论。
Finally, the RFC series provides a historic repository for important ideas. We have come across a number of examples of important suggestions and partial technology developments that have been lost, or hard to locate, because they were not published as RFCs. The community spends too much of our time re-inventing many, many wheels.
最后，RFC系列为重要思想提供了历史知识库。我们遇到了一些重要建议和部分技术开发的例子，这些建议和开发已经丢失，或者很难找到，因为它们没有作为RFC发布。社区花了太多的时间重新发明了很多很多轮子。
Our ultimate goal is to publish more high-quality submissions, so we can raise the bar for publication.
我们的最终目标是发布更多高质量的提交，这样我们就可以提高发布的门槛。
Independent submission publications represent only a minor fraction of the RFC production. For example, so far in calendar 2003 we have published 178 RFCs, including 14 independent submissions. If all the drafts that we think deserve to be
独立提交的出版物只占RFC产品的一小部分。例如，到目前为止，在2003年日历中，我们已经发布了178份RFC，包括14份独立提交的文件。如果我们认为所有的草案都值得
preserved as RFCs were to be published, this fraction would grow, but we would not expect it to grow beyond 25% of the total number of published RFCs.
随着RFC的发布，这一部分将会增长，但我们预计其增长不会超过已发布RFC总数的25%。
(C) We would like to work with the IAB/IESG in re-examining the issue of normative references. We believe that the current definition of normative is ambiguous and unclear, and that as a result some publications may be unnecessarily held up for normative references where these are unnecessary.
（C） 我们希望与IAB/IESG合作，重新审查规范性参考文件的问题。我们认为，目前对规范性文件的定义模棱两可，不明确，因此，一些出版物可能被不必要地搁置在不必要的规范性参考文件中。
(D) We would like to cooperate in an investigation of the issues in extending the character set beyond US-ASCII, .e.g., to UTF-8. A major issue is whether there is a set of preparation, display, and searching tools for both the RFC Editor and the RFC consumers. These tools need to be ubiquitously available and mature enough.
（D） 我们愿意合作调查将字符集扩展到US-ASCII以外的问题，例如UTF-8。一个主要的问题是是否有一套准备、显示和搜索工具供RFC编辑器和RFC使用者使用。这些工具需要无处不在，并且足够成熟。
The RFC Editor is looking for input on how we can best continue to serve the community. We are grateful for the suggestions we have received, and we have adopted as many of them as feasible; the result has been quite a long list of incremental improvements in our service over the past 5 years.
RFC编辑正在寻找关于我们如何最好地继续为社区服务的意见。我们感谢收到的建议，并尽可能多地采纳了这些建议；其结果是，在过去5年中，我们的服务得到了相当长的一长串渐进式改进。
*
* (6) How do you see the costs of your function evolving? If
* things become more costly over time, what are the main
* determiners of cost (e.g., general inflation, general IETF
* growth, increase in the number of particular functions you are
* carried out to perform,...). Are you doing some things that
* IETF (IESG or otherwise) request that you do not consider
* cost-effective and, if so, what are they?
*
*
*
* (6) How do you see the costs of your function evolving? If
* things become more costly over time, what are the main
* determiners of cost (e.g., general inflation, general IETF
* growth, increase in the number of particular functions you are
* carried out to perform,...). Are you doing some things that
* IETF (IESG or otherwise) request that you do not consider
* cost-effective and, if so, what are they?
*
*
ANSWER:
答复:
The major cost factor is the number of documents submitted and published. This has grown relatively slowly over time. It appears to us that the IETF process has (perhaps fortunately) been the bottleneck that has kept the rate of RFC production from growing exponentially. We do not expect that to change dramatically.
主要成本因素是提交和发布的文件数量。随着时间的推移，这种增长相对缓慢。在我们看来，IETF过程（也许幸运的是）一直是阻碍RFC生产速度呈指数级增长的瓶颈。我们不希望这一情况发生巨大变化。
In more detail, the cost factors are:
更详细地说，成本因素包括：
(a) Inflation (on salaries)
(a) 通货膨胀（工资）
This shows a small and predictable annual increase.
这显示出一个小而可预测的年度增长。
(b) The number of RFCs published.
(b) 已发布的RFC的数量。
This is the primary cost factor. The bulk of the editorial and coordinating functions are directly attributable to specific documents. At present, we estimate that this cost category represents 70% of our personnel time, and 63% of our cost.
这是主要的成本因素。大部分编辑和协调职能可直接归因于具体文件。目前，我们估计该成本类别占我们人员时间的70%，占我们成本的63%。
(c) Tasks not directly related to specific RFCs.
(c) 与特定RFC不直接相关的任务。
This includes many functions: management (budget and personnel as well as policy and procedure development), IETF liaison, reviews of independent submissions, development and maintenance of web pages, scripts, and tools, the RFC Online project, maintaining the Errata web page, etc. These are currently estimated to require 30% of our personnel time, and 37% of our cost.
这包括许多功能：管理（预算和人员以及政策和程序制定）、IETF联络、独立提交的审查、网页、脚本和工具的开发和维护、RFC在线项目、维护勘误表网页等。目前估计需要30%的人员时间，还有我们成本的37%。
Minor extensions of function can be absorbed with little extra cost (but at a leisurely pace). We are not proposing any major functional extensions at this time; such extensions would have to be costed separately (were money available for them.)
功能的微小扩展可以用很少的额外成本（但速度较慢）吸收。我们目前没有提出任何主要的功能扩展；这些扩展必须单独计算成本（如果有资金的话）
Disk storage and web services are provided by ISI's support organization and are treated as overhead. Most of the desktop machines used by the project were originally bought under research contracts, although the RFC Editor budget includes a very small item for equipment upgrades.
磁盘存储和web服务由ISI的支持组织提供，并被视为开销。该项目使用的大多数台式机最初是根据研究合同购买的，尽管RFC编辑器预算中包含了一个非常小的设备升级项目。
APPENDIX -- FUNCTIONS OF RFC EDITOR
附录——RFC编辑器的功能
OVERVIEW
概述
The RFC Editor edits and publishes the archival series of RFC (originally "Request for Comment") documents. The RFCs form an archival series of memos about computer communication and packet switching networks that records the technical history of the ARPAnet and the Internet, beginning in 1969. The RFC Editor is funded by the Internet Society and operates under the general direction of the IAB (Internet Architecture Board).
RFC编辑器编辑并发布RFC归档系列（最初为“征求意见”）文档。RFC形成了一系列关于计算机通信和分组交换网络的档案备忘录，记录了从1969年开始的ARPAnet和互联网的技术历史。RFC编辑由互联网协会资助，并在IAB（互联网架构委员会）的总体指导下运作。
The RFC Editor publishes RFCs and a master index of the RFC series electronically on the Internet, via all common access protocols (currently, the Web, email, rsync, and FTP). It announces the existence of each new RFC via electronic mail to one or more mailing lists. The RFC Editor maintains a comprehensive web site with a variety of tools and lists to locate and access RFCs. This website
RFC编辑器通过所有通用访问协议（目前为Web、电子邮件、rsync和FTP）在Internet上以电子方式发布RFC和RFC系列的主索引。它通过电子邮件向一个或多个邮件列表宣布每个新RFC的存在。RFC编辑器维护一个全面的网站，其中包含各种工具和列表，用于定位和访问RFC。本网站
also contains general information about RFC editorial policies, publication queue status, errata, and any other information that will make the RFC series more accessible and more useful.
还包含有关RFC编辑策略、发布队列状态、勘误表的一般信息，以及使RFC系列更易访问和更有用的任何其他信息。
During the RFC editing process, the RFC Editor strives for quality, clarity, and consistency of style and format. Editorial guidelines and procedures to achieve these ends are established by the RFC Editor in consultation with the IAB and IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group). The RFC Editor periodically publishes a revision of these its guidelines to authors.
在RFC编辑过程中，RFC编辑器力求风格和格式的质量、清晰度和一致性。RFC编辑与IAB和IESG（互联网工程指导小组）协商，制定了实现这些目标的编辑指南和程序。RFC编辑定期向作者发布这些指南的修订版。
The RFC Editor coordinates closely with the IESG to carry out the Internet standards process as documented in the latest revision of "The Internet Standards Process" and later amendments. The RFC Editor also coordinates closely with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), to ensure that the parameters used in new and revised protocol descriptions are properly registered.
RFC编辑与IESG密切协调，以执行最新版“互联网标准流程”和后续修订版中记录的互联网标准流程。RFC编辑器还与互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）密切协调，以确保新的和修订的协议描述中使用的参数得到正确注册。
SPECIFIC TASKS
具体任务
I. Editing and publishing RFCs
I.编辑和发布RFC
(1) Publication process. The RFC Editor edits and publishes RFCs in accordance with RFC 2026 (or replacement documents) and RFC 2223bis. This includes the following tasks:
(1) 出版过程。RFC编辑器根据RFC 2026（或替换文件）和RFC 2223bis编辑和发布RFC。这包括以下任务：
(a) Performing the final editing of the documents to maintain consistency of style, editorial standards, and clarity.
(a) 执行文档的最终编辑，以保持样式、编辑标准和清晰度的一致性。
At minimum, the RFC Editor:
RFC编辑器至少应：
(i) Copy-edits the documents, including the correction of spelling and grammar, and some checking for inconsistent notation. Ambiguous sentences are resolved with the authors.
(i) Copy编辑文档，包括拼写和语法的更正，以及一些不一致的注释的检查。歧义句由作者解决。
(ii) Enforces the formatting rules of Section 3 of RFC 2223bis
（ii）执行RFC 2223之二第3节的格式规则
(iii) Ensures that sections follow guidelines and rules of Section 4 of RFC 2223bis.
（iii）确保各节遵循RFC 2223之二第4节的指南和规则。
(iv) Verifies the consistency of references and citations, and verifies contents of references to RFCs and I-Ds.
（iv）验证参考文献和引文的一致性，并验证RFC和I-D参考文献的内容。
(v) Verifies that all normative dependencies have been satisfied.
(v) 验证是否已满足所有规范依赖项。
(vi) Verifies that guidelines from Section 2 of RFC 2223bis are followed, with respect to: URLs, titles, abbreviations, IANA Considerations, author lists, and Requirement-Level words.
（vi）验证是否遵循RFC 2223bis第2节中关于URL、标题、缩写、IANA注意事项、作者列表和需求级单词的指南。
(vii) Typesets the documents in the standard RFC style.
（vii）以标准RFC样式排版文件。
(viii) Verifies the correctness of published MIBs and ABNF fragments, using compilers.
（viii）使用编译器验证已发布MIB和ABNF片段的正确性。
(b) Providing authors with a review period of no less than 48 hours to approve the document.
(b) 为作者提供不少于48小时的审查期以批准文件。
(c) Publishing new RFCs online by installing them in the official RFC archive, which is accessible via HTTP, FTP, and SMTP. The RFC Editor also provides compressed aggregate files of subsets of the complete RFC series, accessible via HTTP and FTP. PDF facsimiles are also maintained for all .txt RFCs.
(c) 在线发布新的RFC，方法是将其安装在官方RFC存档中，该存档可通过HTTP、FTP和SMTP访问。RFC编辑器还提供完整RFC系列子集的压缩聚合文件，可通过HTTP和FTP访问。还为所有.txt RFC维护PDF传真。
(d) Publicly announcing the availability of new RFCs via a mailing list.
(d) 通过邮件列表公开宣布新RFC的可用性。
(e) Coordinating with the IANA for assignment of protocol parameter values for RFCs in the submission queue.
(e) 与IANA协调，为提交队列中的RFC分配协议参数值。
(f) Coordinating closely with the IESG to ensure that the rules of RFC 2026 (or replacement) are followed. RFC Editor personnel attend IETF meetings. A designated RFC Editor person serves as liaison to the IAB and IESG.
(f) 与IESG密切协调，确保遵守RFC 2026（或替换）的规则。RFC编辑人员参加IETF会议。指定的RFC编辑人员充当IAB和IESG的联络人。
(2) Individual Submission Publication
(2) 个人提交出版物
The RFC Editor publishes technically competent and useful documents that arise outside the IETF process, in accordance with RFC 2026. The RFC Editor makes the final determination on the publishability of such documents, with review by the IESG and input from knowledgeable persons.
根据RFC 2026，RFC编辑器发布IETF过程之外出现的技术合格和有用的文件。RFC编辑对此类文件的可发布性做出最终决定，由IESG审查，并由知识渊博的人士提供意见。
The RFC Editor reviews all such documents for acceptable editorial quality and for content, and works with the authors when necessary to raise the quality to an acceptable level.
RFC编辑审查所有此类文件的编辑质量和内容，并在必要时与作者合作，将质量提高到可接受的水平。
(3) Online RFC meta-information
(3) 在线RFC元信息
The RFC editor publishes the following status information via the Web and FTP.
RFC编辑器通过Web和FTP发布以下状态信息。
(a) A list of all RFCs currently published, including complete bibliographic information and document status. This list is published both in human and machine-readable (XML) forms.
(a) 当前发布的所有RFC的列表，包括完整的书目信息和文件状态。此列表以人机可读（XML）形式发布。
(b) A document consisting of summaries of RFCs in each range of 100.
(b) 一份文件，由100个范围内的RFC摘要组成。
(c) A list of errors found in published RFCs.
(c) 在已发布的RFC中发现的错误列表。
(d) An "RFC Editor Queue" specifying the stage of every document in the process of editing, review, and publication.
(d) “RFC编辑器队列”指定编辑、审阅和发布过程中每个文档的阶段。
(e) An RFC Editor web site containing
(e) 包含以下内容的RFC编辑器网站
(i) A search engine for RFCs. (ii) Information on the RFC publication process. (iii) Links to the above published items.
(i) RFC的搜索引擎。（ii）关于RFC发布过程的信息。（iii）上述已出版项目的链接。
(4) Public Queries
(4) 公众查询
Responding to, and when appropriate, redirecting, a wide range of email queries received in the RFC Editor mailbox.
对RFC编辑器邮箱中接收到的各种电子邮件查询进行响应，并在适当时进行重定向。
II. Improved Process and Infrastructure
二、改进的流程和基础设施
When resources allow, the RFC Editor makes improvements to its processes and to the RFC repository infrastructure. This includes improvements and extensions to the set of scripts used by the RFC Editor: (i) to maintain its databases and web pages, and (ii) to increase the efficiency and quality of the editing process.
当资源允许时，RFC编辑器会对其流程和RFC存储库基础结构进行改进。这包括对RFC编辑器使用的脚本集的改进和扩展：（i）维护其数据库和网页，以及（ii）提高编辑过程的效率和质量。
Changes in procedure are often suggested by IETF members as well as by the IESG. Here are some examples of changes that are either in process or have been suggested for possible action in the future.
IETF成员和IESG经常建议对程序进行更改。以下是一些正在进行中或已建议未来可能采取行动的变更示例。
(1) Publication process
(1) 出版过程
(a) Accepting documents in XML encoding when there is an accompanying tool that will produce nroff markup.
(a) 当有一个附带的工具可以生成nroff标记时，接受XML编码的文档。
(b) Studying the feasibility of editing the XML form of submitted documents, prior to producing the final nroff and .txt versions.
(b) 在生成最终的nroff和.txt版本之前，研究编辑提交文档的XML表单的可行性。
(c) Adopting additional tools for verifying formal specification languages used in RFCs in addition to MIBs, PIBs, and ABNF.
(c) 除了MIB、PIB和ABNF之外，还采用其他工具来验证RFC中使用的正式规范语言。
(2) Database Accessibility and Quality
(2) 数据库的可访问性和质量
(d) Improving the usefulness of the Errata information
(d) 提高勘误表信息的有用性
(i) Distinguish mere typographic errors from errors of substance (ii) Link errata to RFC index on web page.
(i) 区分单纯的印刷错误和实质性错误（ii）将勘误表链接到网页上的RFC索引。
(e) Providing Web-based "enhanced" views of RFCs, including:
(e) 提供基于Web的RFC“增强”视图，包括：
(i) Links to other related RFCs and references. (ii) Links to and from online errata pages.
(i) 链接到其他相关RFC和参考资料。（ii）与在线勘误表页面的链接。
(3) Maintaining an online repository of the corrected values of MIBs that have been published in RFCs.
(3) 维护已在RFCs中发布的MIB更正值的在线存储库。
(4) Completing the RFC Online project, to bring online those early RFCs that are available only in paper form.
(4) 完成RFC在线项目，使那些仅以纸质形式提供的早期RFC在线。
Appendix D. Consultation with Foretec/CNRI: Secretariat and Meeting Planning
附录D.与Foretec/CNRI的协商：秘书处和会议规划
Secretariat Responses to Questions from IAB Advisory Committee
秘书处对国际律师协会咨询委员会问题的答复
November 7, 2003
二○○三年十一月七日
* (1) Your description of the function you are performing. Is that * function, and its relationship to the IETF, adequately * understood for working purposes, or is additional description * required? If the latter, what would you suggest?
* （1） 您对正在执行的功能的描述。该功能及其与IETF的关系是否为工作目的而充分理解，或者是否需要额外说明？如果是后者，你有什么建议？
The Secretariat work is divided into four parts: Meeting Planning, WG support, IESG support, and IETF Community support.
秘书处的工作分为四个部分：会议规划、工作组支持、IESG支持和IETF社区支持。
IETF meeting planning includes: identifying venues; negotiating contracts; working closely with the WG chairs and the IESG to schedule events and avoid conflicts; preparing the agendas for the WG sessions; arranging for F&B and AV; handling registration; seeking and signing up hosts; providing Internet access, a terminal room, and a wireless network when a host is not available; providing on-site support; and preparing the proceedings. Meeting planning also may include organizing the IESG retreat.
IETF会议计划包括：确定会议地点；谈判合同；与工作组主席和IESG密切合作，安排活动并避免冲突；编制工作组会议议程；安排餐饮和视听服务；办理登记；寻找和注册主机；当主机不可用时，提供因特网接入、终端室和无线网络；提供现场支持；以及准备诉讼程序。会议计划还可能包括组织IESG务虚会。
WG support includes: maintaining and updating charters, milestones, and other information for the 140+ WGs; tracking changes in chairs; hosting and archiving the discussion mailing lists; and processing requests to publish IDs as RFCs.
工作组支持包括：维护和更新140多个工作组的章程、里程碑和其他信息；跟踪椅子的变化；托管和归档讨论邮件列表；以及处理将ID发布为RFC的请求。
IESG support includes: providing all support required for IESG teleconferences, which take place every two weeks and cover as many as 20+ documents each (i.e., processing "Last Calls", preparing the agenda and package, moderating the teleconference, preparing the minutes, sending out approval announcements, and updating the information in the ID Tracker); tracking the movement of I-Ds to RFCs; interfacing with the RFC Editor; performing administrative functions associated with WG creation, rechartering, and closing; maintaining the internal IESG Web pages; sending miscellaneous message to the IETF announcement list on behalf of the IESG, and posting them to the Web site, where applicable (e.g., appeals to the IESG and IESG responses to appeals); providing support to the NomCom, as needed (i.e., sending announcements, hosting/updating the Web site, arranging for conference calls); and developing Web-based tools to support IESG decision-making.
IESG支持包括：提供IESG电话会议所需的所有支持，该会议每两周举行一次，每次会议覆盖多达20多份文件（即处理“最后一次通话”），准备议程和文件包，主持电话会议，准备会议记录，发送批准公告，并更新ID跟踪器中的信息）；跟踪I-D向RFC的移动；与RFC编辑器接口；执行与工作组创建、重新归档和关闭相关的管理功能；维护内部IESG网页；代表IESG向IETF公告列表发送杂项信息，并在适用的情况下将其发布到网站上（例如，向IESG提出上诉以及IESG对上诉的回应）；根据需要向NomCom提供支持（即发送公告、托管/更新网站、安排电话会议）；以及开发基于网络的工具以支持IESG决策。
IETF Community support includes: running the IETF meetings; hosting the IETF Web site, and keeping the web site it up to date; hosting the IETF announcement and discussion lists; responding to enquiries sent to the IETF Secretariat, the Executive Director, the meeting Registrar, the Webmaster, and the trouble-ticket systems; processing Intellectual Property Rights Notices; processing Liaison Statements; and posting I-Ds.
IETF社区支持包括：举办IETF会议；托管IETF网站，并使网站保持最新；主持IETF公告和讨论列表；答复发送给IETF秘书处、执行主任、会议登记员、网站管理员和故障通知单系统的询问；处理知识产权通知；处理联络声明；并张贴身份证。
* (2) What staff is being used to perform these functions and * what are their particular skills for doing so (either * individually or in the aggregate)?
* （2） 哪些员工被用来履行这些职能，以及*他们在履行这些职能方面的特殊技能是什么（单独或合计）？
-- Three people perform administrative functions.
-- Four-and-a-half people perform technical support.
-- One-and-a-half people do development.
-- Three people do maintenance.
-- Three people perform administrative functions.
-- Four-and-a-half people perform technical support.
-- One-and-a-half people do development.
-- Three people do maintenance.
* (3) What criteria do you use to determine whether you are being * successful, and how successful? Using those criteria, how * successful are you and what could be done, especially from the * IETF side, to improve that evaluation?
* （3） 你用什么标准来决定你是否成功，以及成功的程度？使用这些标准，你的*成功程度如何，以及可以做些什么，特别是从*IETF方面，来改进评估？
The continued efficient operation and evolution of the Internet is one important goal and challenge facing the IETF, and also the IETF Secretariat. Working together to assist the IETF in performing this important function has been a motivating factor in CNRI's support for almost 15 years. The criteria followed by CNRI, and (more recently) its subsidiary Foretec, in their efforts on behalf of the entire Internet community is to provide a consistent and dependable mechanism that enables those persons interested in the many and varied issues that are raised within the IETF to perform their important work in the Internet standards process unburdened by the
互联网的持续高效运行和发展是IETF和IETF秘书处面临的一个重要目标和挑战。共同协助IETF履行这一重要职能是近15年来CNRI支持的一个激励因素。CNRI和（最近）其子公司Foretec遵循的标准，他们代表整个互联网社区所做的努力是提供一个一致和可靠的机制，使那些对IETF中提出的许多不同问题感兴趣的人能够在互联网标准过程中完成他们的重要工作，而不受
routine administrative tasks associated with such endeavors. While I think this has been a successful activity over many years, there is always room for improvement; and a continuing dialogue between CNRI, ISOC, and the IETF leadership is useful for this purpose. High on my list of suggestions would be finding a way to increase the funds available to meet the increasing demands placed on the Secretariat. We can no longer depend only on attendance fees at meetings for this purpose.
与此类工作相关的日常管理任务。虽然我认为多年来这是一项成功的活动，但总有改进的余地；为此，CNRI、ISOC和IETF领导层之间的持续对话非常有用。在我的建议清单上，最重要的是设法增加可用资金，以满足对秘书处提出的日益增加的要求。为此，我们不能再仅仅依靠出席会议的费用。
* (4) How would you characterize the quality of your relationship * with the IETF and its leadership? Is there mutual trust and a * sense of working together on issues, or do you and your * colleagues sometimes see the relationship as adversarial?
* （4） 您如何描述您与IETF及其领导层的关系质量？是否存在相互信任和在问题上合作的感觉，或者你和你的同事有时会认为这种关系是敌对的？
While the Foretec management may have issues arising from day to day workflow demands on limited resources, CNRI values the trusted relationship we have had with the IETF community. The issue is cooperating in the development of new funding sources, and learning to live within the available resources. There is also an issue about effective lines of authority for the purpose of carrying out certain aspects of the overall standards process. There are many demands and pressures on the IESG and hence on the Secretariat. These workflow demands need to be addressed in a more systematic way for the benefit of all.
虽然Foretec管理层可能会因有限资源的日常工作流程需求而产生问题，但CNRI重视我们与IETF社区之间的信任关系。问题在于合作开发新的资金来源，并学会在现有资源范围内生活。还有一个问题是，为了执行整个标准过程的某些方面，需要有效的权限。对IESG和秘书处有许多要求和压力。为了所有人的利益，需要以更系统的方式解决这些工作流需求。
* (5) Are there specific known problems you would like us to look * at and understand? If so, please describe them.
* （5） 您是否希望我们看到并理解一些具体的已知问题？如果是，请描述它们。
Workload is high. Given the budgetary constraints that the Secretariat is under, there are no resources to take on additional work. The staff supporting all areas are working overtime just to keep up with the current workload.
工作量很大。鉴于秘书处受到预算限制，没有资源承担额外的工作。支持所有领域的工作人员都在加班，以跟上当前的工作量。
The Secretariat does not believe that the IETF Community appreciates the scope of the tasks. The Secretariat is automating more tasks, hopefully reducing the overall workload. There is a long queue of requests for new features in the tools that the Secretariat has built. There is not money to hire more developers. The IETF Executive Director is documenting processes. This has naturally caused discussion about whether the processes are what everyone wants the processes to be. While expected, it also increases workload.
秘书处不认为IETF社区了解任务的范围。秘书处正在使更多的任务自动化，有望减少总体工作量。对秘书处建立的工具中的新功能的要求排起了长队。没有钱雇佣更多的开发商。IETF执行主任正在记录过程。这自然引起了关于过程是否是每个人都希望的过程的讨论。虽然这是意料之中的，但也增加了工作量。
* (6) How do you see the costs of your function evolving? If * things become more costly over time, what are the main * determiners of cost (e.g., general inflation, general IETF * growth, increase in the number of particular functions you are
* （6） 您如何看待您的职能演变的成本？如果随着时间的推移，成本变得更高，那么成本的主要决定因素是什么（例如，总体通货膨胀、总体IETF*增长、特定功能数量的增加）
* carried out to perform,...). Are you doing some things that * IETF (IESG or otherwise) request that you do not consider * cost-effective and, if so, what are they?
* 执行执行…）。你在做一些事情吗？IETF（IESG或其他）要求你不考虑*成本效益，如果是的话，他们是什么？
The total budget for IETF-related activities at Foretec last year was about $2.5M. The vast bulk was covered by IETF meeting fees, but the shortfall was covered by contributions from CNRI and Foretec.
去年Foretec与IETF相关活动的总预算约为250万美元。大部分由IETF会议费支付，但不足部分由CNRI和Foretec的捐款支付。
CNRI has been asked by its Board to find a solution to the problem.
CNRI董事会已要求其找到解决问题的方法。
Appendix E. Consultation with ICANN: IANA protocol Parameter Assignment
附录E.与ICANN的协商：IANA协议参数分配
Responses to Questions from IAB Advisory Committee for the IANA Protocol Parameter Assignment Function
IAB咨询委员会关于IANA协议参数分配功能的问题回复
November 7, 2003
二○○三年十一月七日
* (1) Your description of the function you are performing. Is that * function, and its relationship to the IETF, adequately described in * RFC 2860 (the MOU) and RFC 2434 (Guidelines for IANA * considerations), or is additional description required? If the * latter, what would you suggest?
* （1） 您对正在执行的功能的描述。*RFC 2860（谅解备忘录）和RFC 2434（IANA*注意事项指南）中是否充分描述了*功能及其与IETF的关系，或者是否需要额外描述？如果是后者，你有什么建议？
Per Michelle [Cotton, IANA], RFC 2860 probably remains sufficient as an MOU describing the functions that the IANA provides to the IETF. That office consists of, effective soon, a manager, three technical clerical staff (four full-time equivalents) plus half a dozen people on a consulting basis, performing functions for the IETF and the RIRs. The portion of that effort supporting IETF parameter assignment is roughly a full-time-equivalent plus software support and normal management/employment overheads. Fundamentally, the IETF parameter assignment function consists of accepting requests for protocol numbers for extensible protocols (such as IP Protocol, PPP PID, TCP/UDP Port, and the like), validating them according to business rules, identifying the appropriate registry, and in some cases portion of a registry, assigning the number, and documenting the result.
根据Michelle[Cotton，IANA]，RFC 2860可能仍然足以作为描述IANA向IETF提供的功能的谅解备忘录。该办公室由一名经理、三名技术文书工作人员（四名全职同等人员）和六名咨询人员组成，负责执行IETF和RIR的职能。支持IETF参数分配的部分工作大致相当于全职工作，加上软件支持和正常管理/雇佣开销。基本上，IETF参数分配功能包括接受对可扩展协议（如IP协议、PPP PID、TCP/UDP端口等）的协议编号的请求，根据业务规则对其进行验证，确定适当的注册表，以及在某些情况下注册表的一部分，分配编号，并记录结果。
RFC 2434 has served the IANA staff well as a guide, but is now in need of updating. Specific concerns with the document relate to the meaning of terms and the specificity of the information provided to the IANA in internet drafts.
RFC 2434为IANA工作人员提供了良好的指导，但现在需要更新。与本文件相关的具体问题涉及互联网草案中向IANA提供的术语含义和信息的特殊性。
One issue relates to the meaning of the term "IETF consensus". When a document has passed through a defined consensus process, such as a working group, this is straightforward. When requests come to IANA
一个问题涉及“IETF共识”一词的含义。当一份文件通过了一个定义的协商一致过程（如工作组）时，这是很简单的。当IANA收到请求时
that have not done so, IANA needs specific guidance on IETF expectations. This generally comes in the form of AD direction or consulting advice. An improved process would help, though; business rules that inform the IANA when a new registry is appropriate, and what rules should be applied in assignment of values in any given registry, for example, would help.
如果没有这样做，IANA需要关于IETF期望的具体指导。这通常以广告指导或咨询建议的形式出现。不过，改进流程会有所帮助；例如，告知IANA新注册何时合适的业务规则，以及在任何给定注册中的值分配中应应用哪些规则，都会有所帮助。
Parameter assignment being an essentially clerical function, specific guidance to the clerical staff is absolutely mandatory, and often lacking or unclear. In IANA's dreams, every internet draft would contain an IANA Considerations section, even if all it said was "IANA need not concern itself with this draft". In the absence of such a statement, the IESG's IANA Liaison is forced to read the entire document at least twice: once when the IESG is first handed the document, to ensure that any instructions to IANA are clear, and again when the IESG hands the document on, to ensure that it can perform the requests the draft makes. This is clearly time-consuming and prone to error.
参数分配本质上是一项文书职能，对文书工作人员的具体指导是绝对强制性的，而且往往缺乏或不明确。在IANA的梦想中，每一份互联网草案都会包含一个IANA考虑事项部分，即使它所说的只是“IANA不需要关心这个草案”。在没有此类声明的情况下，IESG的IANA联络人被迫至少阅读整个文件两次：一次是在IESG第一次收到文件时，以确保对IANA的任何指示都是明确的，另一次是在IESG提交文件时，以确保其能够执行草案提出的请求。这显然很耗时，而且容易出错。
IANA is now receiving a certain level of instruction in internet drafts, which is good. However, even the present level of advice is frequently lacking in clarity. For example, a PPP NCP definition might well require the assignment of two PIDs, one for the data exchange and one for the NCP itself. These two numbers come from four very separate ranges: 0001..00FF, 0101..7FFF, 8001..BFFF, and C001..FFFF. The choice of range is important, especially on low speed lines using byte-oriented asynchronous transmission, as the data assignment has a trade-off implied for the relative frequency of messages using the specified protocol, and the control function PIDs are partitioned as well. In such a case, IANA needs to know not that "two PIDs are required", but that "two PPP PIDs are required, the data PID named <d-name$gt; defined in section <> from the range 0001..00FF, and the control PID named <c-name$gt; defined in section <> from the range 8001..BFFF".
IANA现在接受了一定程度的互联网草稿指导，这是很好的。然而，即使是目前的建议水平也常常缺乏明确性。例如，PPP NCP定义可能需要分配两个PID，一个用于数据交换，另一个用于NCP本身。这两个数字来自四个非常不同的范围：0001..00FF、0101..7FFF、8001..BFFF和C001..FFFF。范围的选择很重要，尤其是在使用面向字节的异步传输的低速线路上，因为数据分配具有使用指定协议的消息相对频率的折衷，并且控制功能PID也被划分。在这种情况下，IANA不需要知道“需要两个PID”，而需要知道“需要两个PPP PID，第<>节中定义的数据PID从范围0001..00FF开始，第<>节中定义的控制PID从范围8001..bff开始”。
Descriptions of registries to be designed need to be equally clear. If the specification says in its IANA Considerations section that "a registry named 'Fubar Code Points' should be built; the initial values in a table <name> and IANA may assign additional values in any remaining value between the last initial code point and 65535", that is exactly what will happen. If there are additional expectations, such as "the working group's assigned number advisor will be asked" or "all assignments must be made in an RFC of informational or standard status", they won't necessarily be met - unless the IANA Considerations section specifies as much. What you put in the IANA Considerations section is what will be followed. It should be made clear so that the implementors get what they requested. Also, clear IANA Considerations sections also help the community, not only IANA.
对拟设计的登记册的描述也需要同样清楚。如果规范在IANA注意事项部分中指出“应建立一个名为‘Fubar Code Points’的注册表；表<name>中的初始值和IANA可能会在最后一个初始代码点和65535之间的任何剩余值中分配附加值”，这正是将要发生的情况。如果有额外的期望，例如“将询问工作组的分配号码顾问”或“所有分配必须在信息或标准状态的RFC中进行”，则不一定会满足这些期望，除非IANA注意事项部分规定了更多。您在IANA注意事项部分中所做的是将要遵循的内容。应该明确这一点，以便实现者得到他们所要求的。此外，清晰的IANA注意事项部分也有助于社区，而不仅仅是IANA。
It makes (1) the authors think about all aspects of the creation of a registry and instructions on how to maintain but also (2) the public knows and understands the new registry instructions and how they can get assignments/registrations in that registry.
它使（1）作者思考创建注册表的各个方面，以及如何维护注册表的说明；（2）公众知道并理解新注册表说明，以及他们如何在该注册表中获得分配/注册。
Something that would materially help the IANA in its evaluation of internet drafts is a comment tracking system on the IETF side. The IANA's use of such a system is apparent: any comments it makes on the draft would appear in the system, where the IESG may readily retrieve them, and the IANA can find its comments when the draft later comes there. To be truly helpful, it should also include at least any last call IETF commentary and AD commentary, including agreed changes to the document. This would permit IANA to review those notes as well, which may in turn elicit further IANA commentary ("if you make that change, you should also specify <> in the IANA Considerations section") or may guide IANA's implementation.
IETF端的评论跟踪系统对IANA评估互联网草案有很大帮助。IANA使用这样一个系统是显而易见的：它对草案所做的任何评论都会出现在系统中，IESG可以随时检索到它们，IANA可以在草案随后出现时找到它的评论。为了真正有用，它还应至少包括任何最后一次呼叫IETF评论和广告评论，包括对文件的商定更改。这将允许IANA审查这些注释，这可能反过来引发IANA的进一步评论（“如果您进行了更改，您还应在IANA注意事项部分中指定”<>），或指导IANA的实施。
Normative references apply to IANA considerations as well as to other parts of the specification. Recently, the IESG started passing documents along prior to other documents normative for them, allowing them to sit in later queues to synchronize with their normative documents. In the special case where the normative document defines a registry and the draft under discussion assigns a value from that registry, this case needs to be handled in queue and in process like any other normative reference.
规范性参考文件适用于IANA考虑事项以及规范的其他部分。最近，IESG开始先传递文档，然后再传递其他规范性文档，允许他们在稍后的队列中与规范性文档同步。在特殊情况下，规范性文件定义了一个注册中心，讨论中的草案从该注册中心分配了一个值，这种情况需要像任何其他规范性引用一样在队列和过程中处理。
* (2) What staff is being used to perform these functions and what * are their particular skills for doing so (either individually or * in the aggregate)?
* （2） 哪些员工被用来履行这些职能，以及他们（单独或合计）履行这些职能的特殊技能是什么？
The staff assigned to this function, on 4 November 2003, includes Michelle Cotton and an assistant. They are essentially intelligent clerical staff familiar with computer back office applications, but otherwise with no special technical training. For technical questions, they depend heavily on advisors within IANA or assigned by the IETF.
2003年11月4日分配给这一职能的工作人员包括米歇尔·科顿和一名助理。他们基本上是聪明的办事员，熟悉计算机后台应用程序，但没有经过专门的技术培训。对于技术问题，他们严重依赖IANA内部的顾问或IETF指派的顾问。
It should be kept in mind that it is not the IANA's job to understand how every protocol works that is being defined in a new registry. The IANA needs to know how to create and maintain the registry administratively.
需要记住的是，IANA的工作不是了解新注册中心中定义的每个协议的工作原理。IANA需要知道如何在管理上创建和维护注册表。
* (3) What criteria do you use to determine whether you are being * successful, and how successful? Using those criteria, how * successful are you and what could be done, especially from the IETF * side, to improve that evaluation?
* （3） 你用什么标准来决定你是否成功，以及成功的程度？使用这些标准，你的*成功程度如何，以及可以做些什么，特别是从IETF*方面，来改进评估？
The basic measure of success is the number of assignments made.
衡量成功的基本标准是完成任务的数量。
Michelle's sense is that IANA is now moderately successful, however further improvement can be made internally and externally.
Michelle认为IANA现在已经取得了一定的成功，但是内部和外部都可以进行进一步的改进。
Paul is defining web-based automation which should help various aspects of IANA's work, including in part the IETF IANA function. Michelle believes that this automation will materially help her timeliness. But for that to be carried out properly, clear business guidelines must be given IANA for each of the existing registries, guidelines whose application can be readily automated. This is likely an IETF effort, or at least requires serious IETF input.
Paul正在定义基于web的自动化，这将有助于IANA工作的各个方面，部分包括IETF IANA功能。Michelle相信，这种自动化将大大有助于她的及时性。但是，为了使这项工作得到适当执行，必须为每个现有登记处提供明确的业务指南，这些指南的应用程序可以很容易地自动化。这可能是IETF的努力，或者至少需要认真的IETF输入。
* (4) How would you characterize the quality of your relationship * with the IETF and its leadership? Is there mutual trust and a * sense of working together on issues, or do you and your * colleagues sometimes see the relationship as adversarial?
* （4） 您如何描述您与IETF及其领导层的关系质量？是否存在相互信任和在问题上合作的感觉，或者你和你的同事有时会认为这种关系是敌对的？
At this point, Michelle feels that IETF/IAB leadership is friendly and generally constructive. She is very cognizant of AD workload, and as such tries to focus questions and find other people to ask them of. As such, she perceives the communication level and volume to be on the light side of "about right".
在这一点上，Michelle认为IETF/IAB的领导是友好的，总体上是建设性的。她非常了解广告的工作量，因此努力集中问题，并找到其他人向她提问。因此，她认为沟通水平和音量在“大约正确”的光明面上。
Again, amplified clarity of IESG/WG policy would reduce her question load, and there may be utility for an IAB liaison from the IANA such as IANA has with the IESG. That is really a question for the IAB; if it has questions for IANA, the chair should feel free to invite her comment or invite a liaison.
同样，扩大IESG/WG政策的清晰度将减少她的问题量，IANA与IESG之间的IAB联络也可能有用。这确实是IAB的一个问题；如果对IANA有疑问，主席可以随时邀请她发表评论或邀请联络人。
* (5) Are there specific known problems you would like us to look at * and understand? If so, please describe them.
* （5） 是否有您希望我们了解的特定已知问题？如果是，请描述它们。
This note has made a point concerning clarity of instructions, clarity of policy, and clarity of registries. There is ongoing work at IANA to clean up registry files inherited when IANA was split out from the RFC Editor's office; in dealing with the business considerations questions already raised, it may be helpful for a tiger team from the IETF to review their registries with them and make suggestions.
本说明就说明的明确性、政策的明确性和登记册的明确性提出了一点意见。IANA正在进行清理注册表文件的工作，这些文件是IANA从RFC编辑办公室分离出来时继承的；在处理已经提出的业务考虑问题时，IETF的tiger团队与他们一起审查其注册并提出建议可能会有所帮助。
There is an ongoing problem with receiving announcements concerning at least some internet drafts. Michelle plans to follow up with the Secretariat on this, but in short it appears that the IANA liaison is not copied on at least some list that internet draft actions are announced on. This seems to pertain to individual submissions that the IESG advises the RFC Editor that it "has no problem" publishing.
在接收至少一些互联网草案的公告时，存在一个持续的问题。Michelle计划就此与秘书处跟进，但简言之，至少在一些公布互联网行动草案的名单上，IANA联络处似乎没有被复制。这似乎与IESG建议RFC编辑“没有问题”出版的个人提交有关。
* (6) How do you see the costs of your function evolving? If things * become more costly over time, what are the main determiners of * cost (e.g., general inflation, general IETF growth, increase in the * number of particular functions you are carried out to * perform,...). Are you doing some things that IETF (IESG or * otherwise) request that you do not consider cost-effective and, * if so, what are they?
* （6） 您如何看待您的职能演变的成本？如果事情*随着时间的推移变得更加昂贵，那么*成本的主要决定因素是什么（例如，总体通货膨胀、总体IETF增长、您执行*执行*的特定功能的*数量增加……）。你是否正在做一些IETF（IESG或*其他）要求你不考虑成本效益的事情，如果是的话，他们是什么？
As detailed, the function described in RFC 2860 represents approximately a person-equivalent, plus facilities, software support, and standard business loading. This has been the approximate load level for at least the past five years, and is projected to remain about the same for the near future. The cost-effectiveness issues revolve around human-in-the-loop effort involved in reading drafts, investigating inquiries, and such that have been detailed here. The sense is that an effective comment management system plus the work flow systems ICANN is planning to implement should result in a net near term improvement in efficiency and timeliness; projected IETF growth should then consume that improvement over time.
如前所述，RFC 2860中描述的功能大约相当于一个人，加上设施、软件支持和标准业务加载。至少在过去五年中，这是近似的负荷水平，预计在不久的将来将保持不变。成本效益问题围绕着阅读草稿、调查查询等过程中的人在回路中的工作展开，本文对此进行了详细介绍。从某种意义上说，一个有效的评论管理系统加上ICANN计划实施的工作流程系统应该在短期内提高效率和及时性；随着时间的推移，预计的IETF增长将消耗这种改进。
Author's Address
作者地址
IAB Advisory Committee IETF
IAB咨询委员会
EMail: iab@iab.org
EMail: iab@iab.org
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
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.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding 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 the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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 that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。