Network Working Group B. Aboba
Request for Comments: 5111 Microsoft Corporation
Category: Experimental L. Dondeti
QUALCOMM, Inc.
January 2008
Network Working Group B. Aboba
Request for Comments: 5111 Microsoft Corporation
Category: Experimental L. Dondeti
QUALCOMM, Inc.
January 2008
Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
互联网工程任务组（IETF）内探索性小组形成的实验
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
这份备忘录为互联网社区定义了一个实验性协议。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。要求进行讨论并提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Abstract
摘要
This document describes an RFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group formation process, known as the Exploratory Group. Exploratory Groups may be created as the first step toward Working Group formation, or as an intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation. Exploratory Groups are focused on completion of prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they have a short life-time, with limited opportunities for milestone extension.
本文件描述了工作组形成过程中的RFC 3933实验，称为探索组。探索性小组可以作为组建工作组的第一步，也可以作为羽毛鸟（BOF）会议和创建工作组之间的中间步骤。探索小组的重点是完成工作组组建的先决条件，因此他们的生命周期较短，里程碑延期的机会有限。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements ...............................................4
2. Exploratory Group Formation .....................................4
3. The Experiment ..................................................5
3.1. Success Metrics ............................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................6
5. Normative References ............................................6
6. Acknowledgments .................................................6
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements ...............................................4
2. Exploratory Group Formation .....................................4
3. The Experiment ..................................................5
3.1. Success Metrics ............................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................6
5. Normative References ............................................6
6. Acknowledgments .................................................6
"IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" [RFC2418] describes the Working Group formation process within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). As noted in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1:
“IETF工作组指南和程序”[RFC2418]描述了互联网工程任务组（IETF）内的工作组组建过程。如RFC 2418[RFC2418]第2.1节所述：
When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several issues:
在确定是否成立一个工作组时，区域主任和IESG将考虑几个问题：
- Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and relevant to the Internet community?
- 工作组计划解决的问题是否明确且与互联网社区相关？
- Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable within a reasonable time frame?
- 目标是否具体且合理可实现，并且在合理的时间范围内可实现？
- What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the level of effort required?
- 为了确定所需的工作水平，工作的风险和紧迫性是什么？
- Do the working group's activities overlap with those of another working group? ...
- 该工作组的活动是否与另一工作组的活动重叠。。。
- Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)? ...
- IETF内部是否对工作组的主题有足够的兴趣，有足够的人愿意付出努力来产生预期的结果（例如，协议规范）。。。
- Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the working group? ...
- IETF中是否有足够的专家参与工作组的主题，这些人是否有兴趣参与工作组的工作。。。
- Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? ...
- 对于计划的工作，是否存在感兴趣的消费者（最终用户）群体。。。
- Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? ...
- IETF在确定技术方面是否有合理的作用。。。
- Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the proposed working group's efforts issues understood?
- 是否了解与拟议工作组工作相关的所有已知知识产权问题？
- Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF participants may be limited?
- 提议的工作计划是一项开放的IETF工作，还是试图在IETF参与者的输入效果可能有限的情况下“祝福”非IETF技术？
- Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to pursue? This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere.
- 是否充分了解与拟议工作组将开展的主题相关的任何现有工作？这包括IETF和其他地方的工作。
- Do the working group's goals overlap with known work in another standards body, and if so is adequate liaison in place?
- 工作组的目标是否与其他标准机构的已知工作重叠，如果重叠，是否有足够的联系？
In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet community may be demonstrated, the answer to other questions (such as an understanding of existing work, clarity or achievability of goals, or overlap with existing working groups or standards bodies) may not be as clear. In the past, the likely outcome in this circumstance has been to postpone Working Group formation or even Birds of a Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming. However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential Working Group officially undetermined for months or even years. While the Area Directors should provide potential Working Group participants timely updates on the status of the potential Working Group and insight into IESG or IAB concerns, currently there is no mechanism to track progress toward Working Group creation, and as a result, participants may not have a clear understanding of the status or the next steps. Also, the lack of formal recognition may negatively affect the motivation of the participants, and may leave those who have not followed the effort closely with an impression that no work is going on.
在某些情况下，IETF参与者和最终用户的兴趣可能很明显，与互联网社区的相关性可能会得到证明，但其他问题的答案（如对现有工作的理解、目标的清晰性或可实现性，或与现有工作组或标准机构的重叠）可能没有那么清楚。在过去，在这种情况下，可能的结果是推迟工作组的组建，甚至推迟羽毛鸟（BOF）会议，直到得到满意的答案。然而，在实践中，这可能使潜在工作组的地位在数月甚至数年内无法正式确定。虽然区域主管应及时向潜在工作组参与者提供关于潜在工作组状态的最新信息，并深入了解IESG或IAB关注的问题，但目前没有跟踪工作组创建进度的机制，因此，参与者可能不清楚状态或下一步。此外，缺乏正式认可可能会对参与者的动机产生负面影响，并可能给那些没有密切关注工作的人留下没有工作进行的印象。
This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the Working Group (WG) formation process, known as the Exploratory Group (EG). Exploratory Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to conclude within a short time frame, with limited opportunities for milestone extension.
本文件描述了工作组（WG）形成过程中的RFC 3933[RFC3933]实验，称为探索组（EG）。探索小组里程碑的重点是完成工作组组建的先决条件，因此，预计它们将在短时间内完成，里程碑延期的机会有限。
This Exploratory Group experiment does not alter the Working Group formation guidelines described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1, or the Internet Standards Process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Rather, it builds on these existing processes, introducing an element of formality which may be useful in clarifying IESG and/or IAB concerns relating to Working Group formation criteria and motivating more rapid progress toward their resolution. Since Exploratory Group documents (including the EG Charter and potential WG Charter) are reviewed and comments are tracked using existing tools and processes, feedback is available to Exploratory Group chairs and authors, providing for transparency and accountability.
该探索性小组实验不会改变RFC 2418[RFC2418]第2.1节中所述的工作组组建指南，也不会改变RFC 2026[RFC2026]中所述的互联网标准流程。相反，它建立在这些现有流程的基础上，引入了一种形式化元素，这可能有助于澄清IESG和/或IAB对工作组组建标准的关注，并推动更快地解决这些问题。由于考察组文件（包括EG章程和潜在工作组章程）经过审查，并使用现有工具和流程跟踪评论，因此可向考察组主席和作者提供反馈，以确保透明度和问责制。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
If at any point during the Working Group formation process, relevance to the Internet community and interest within the IETF and end-user community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working Group formation criteria outlined in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that an Exploratory Group be formed. Exploratory Groups MAY be created as the first step toward Working Group formation, or as an intermediate step between an initial Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation. The formation of an Exploratory Group after a second BOF is NOT RECOMMENDED.
如果在工作组组建过程中的任何时候，已经证明了与互联网社区的相关性以及IETF和最终用户社区的兴趣，但尚未满足RFC 2418[RFC2418]第2.1节中概述的一个或多个工作组组建标准，IESG可以提议组建一个探索小组。探索性小组可以作为工作组组建的第一步，也可以作为最初的羽毛鸟（BOF）会议和工作组组建之间的中间步骤。不建议在第二次转炉后组建勘探组。
Since the goal of an Exploratory Group is to put in place the prerequisites for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than might otherwise be possible, Exploratory Groups SHOULD initially be chartered for a period of six months to twelve months, with six months being the default. While the IESG MAY extend the initial Exploratory Group milestones by an additional six months, extensions beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED. The Exploratory Group Charter SHOULD include at least the following "basic milestones":
由于探索小组的目标是以比其他方式更快的速度建立工作组的先决条件，因此，探索小组最初的特许期应为6个月至12个月，默认为6个月。虽然IESG可以将最初的勘探小组里程碑再延长六个月，但不建议再延长六个月。勘探集团章程应至少包括以下“基本里程碑”：
o Development of a Working Group Charter.
o 制定工作组章程。
o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of the Working Group formation criteria described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1.
o 编制一份文件，证明符合RFC 2418[RFC2418]第2.1节所述的工作组组建标准。
The IESG MAY also include additional milestones within an Exploratory Group charter (such as development of a problem statement or requirements document and/or completion of a review of the literature or current practices), as long as these additional milestones do not compromise the ability of the Exploratory Group to deliver on the basic milestones in a timely way. A Exploratory Group charter MUST NOT include milestones relating to development of standards track documents or protocol specifications.
IESG还可能包括探索性集团章程中的其他里程碑（如制定问题陈述或要求文件和/或完成文献或当前实践的审查），只要这些额外的里程碑不影响探索小组及时交付基本里程碑的能力。勘探集团章程不得包括与标准跟踪文件或协议规范制定相关的里程碑。
Since the Exploratory Group experiment is not intended as a substitute for the existing Working Group formation process, Exploratory Groups SHOULD be formed only in situations where the prerequisites for formation of a WG are likely to be met if the EG successfully completes the basic milestones.
由于探索性小组实验并不打算取代现有的工作组组建过程，因此，只有在EG成功完成基本里程碑后，才可能满足组建工作组的先决条件的情况下，才应组建探索性小组。
This experiment runs for a period of 18 months from IESG approval of the experiment. During the period of the experiment, the IESG MAY approve formation of as many as three Exploratory Groups. The IESG MUST inform the community in a public statement of any decisions for Exploratory Group formation approved under this experiment. Such a statement SHOULD include a description of specific Exploratory Group that was formed.
从IESG批准该实验开始，该实验为期18个月。在实验期间，IESG可能会批准组建多达三个探索小组。IESG必须在公开声明中告知社区根据本实验批准的任何勘探组组建决定。此类声明应包括对所组成的特定勘探组的描述。
Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Exploratory Groups to be handled identically to Working Groups in terms of IETF process, tools and infrastructure; no additional burden is to be imposed on the IETF Secretariat. Other than the abbreviated Exploratory Group charter, the process for formation of an Exploratory Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including review by the IAB and IESG, announcement of the potential Exploratory Group, and request for review by the IETF community. The operating rules of an Exploratory Group (openness, meeting requirements, etc.) are identical to Working Groups. From the point of view of IETF infrastructure (tools, membership in the WGCHAIRS mailing list, process rules, Exploratory Group Charter pages, etc.) Exploratory Groups are treated identically to Working Groups, with the exception that Exploratory Group names should include "EG" within the name (e.g. "EXAMPLEEG"), so as to clearly differentiate them from Working Groups.
鉴于这是一项实验，其目的是在IETF过程、工具和基础设施方面，探索性小组的处理方式与工作小组相同；IETF秘书处不承担任何额外负担。除了简短的探索小组章程外，探索小组的形成过程与工作小组的形成过程相同，包括IAB和IESG的审查、潜在探索小组的宣布以及IETF社区的审查请求。探索小组的操作规则（开放性、满足要求等）与工作组相同。从IETF基础设施（工具、邮件列表中的成员资格、流程规则、探索组章程页等）的角度来看，探索组与工作组的处理方式相同，但探索组名称中应包含“EG”（例如“EXAMPLEEG”），以明确区分它们与工作组。
Review of Exploratory Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools and processes (including PROTO shepherding) as other IETF documents; this allows feedback to be viewed by Exploratory Group Chairs and participants, as well as providing additional clarity on next steps. Formation of an Exploratory Group requires the appointment of an Exploratory Group Chair, and a well defined set of Working Group formation criteria (agreement on the Working Group Charter, review of the formation criteria, problem statement or requirements document, etc.).
对勘探组文件的审查将使用与其他IETF文件相同的跟踪工具和过程（包括原型管理）；这使得探索性小组主席和参与者可以查看反馈，并进一步明确下一步的工作。组建探索小组需要任命一名探索小组主席，并制定一套明确的工作小组组建标准（就工作小组章程达成一致、审查组建标准、问题陈述或要求文件等）。
Since one of the goals of this experiment is to enable the more rapid formation of Working Groups, the success of an individual Exploratory Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the progress made toward Working Group formation. Useful metrics include:
由于本实验的目标之一是更快速地组建工作组，因此可以根据组建工作组的进展来衡量单个探索小组以及实验的成功与否。有用的指标包括：
Progress on Basic Milestones A Exploratory Group that does not make progress on its basic milestones cannot be judged successful, regardless of its other achievements, such as progress on a literature review or requirements document. Progress on the basic milestones is measured by whether they are completed within the time-frame specified in the initial Exploratory Group Charter, and whether feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF community is positive, leading the IESG to vote to form a Working Group.
基本里程碑进展一个探索小组如果在其基本里程碑上没有取得进展，则无论其其他成就如何，例如在文献审查或需求文件方面的进展，都无法判断其是否成功。衡量基本里程碑进展的标准是：这些里程碑是否在初始勘探小组章程规定的时间范围内完成，以及IESG、IAB和IETF社区的反馈是否积极，从而导致IESG投票成立工作组。
Mailing List Activity Since one of the goals of the Exploratory Group experiment is to avoid a potential loss of interest among participants, evidence of continued engagement on the part of Exploratory Group participants based on mailing list activity is a potential success metric. Conversely, an Exploratory Group whose mailing list shows minimal traffic would probably not be a good candidate for milestone extension.
邮件列表活动由于探索性小组实验的目标之一是避免参与者之间的潜在兴趣丧失，基于邮件列表活动的探索性小组参与者持续参与的证据是一个潜在的成功指标。相反，邮件列表显示流量最小的探索组可能不是里程碑扩展的好候选。
This document describes an experiment in the formation of Exploratory Groups. It has no security considerations.
本文件描述了一个探索小组形成的实验。它没有安全考虑。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC2418]Bradner，S.，“IETF工作组指南和程序”，BCP 25，RFC 2418，1998年9月。
[RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004.
[RFC3933]Klensin，J.和S.Dawkins，“IETF过程实验的模型”，BCP 93，RFC 3933，2004年11月。
The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, Thomas Narten, Lars Eggert, Eric Rescorla, Sam Hartman, and John Klensin for valuable input.
作者要感谢贾里·阿尔科、布赖恩·卡彭特、托马斯·纳滕、拉尔斯·艾格特、埃里克·雷斯科拉、萨姆·哈特曼和约翰·克林森的宝贵意见。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
伯纳德·阿博巴（Bernard Aboba）微软公司华盛顿州雷德蒙微软大道一号，邮编：98052
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
Lakshminath Dondeti QUALCOMM, Inc. 5775 Morehouse Dr San Diego, CA USA
Lakshminath Dondeti高通公司5775 Morehouse Dr San Diego，CA USA
EMail: ldondeti@qualcomm.com
Phone: +1 858-845-1267
EMail: ldondeti@qualcomm.com
Phone: +1 858-845-1267
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2008年）。
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金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.