Markdown Version | Session Recording
Session Date/Time: 26 Jul 2024 16:30
# isopen
## Summary
This meeting addressed the role and function of the Independent Submissions (IS) RFC stream within the IETF ecosystem. Discussions centered on its purpose, operation, and potential for confusion with IETF consensus documents. Key concerns included reliance on a single individual (the ISE), the RFC brand's implications, and handling of cryptographic algorithms. The IAB committed to reviewing the feedback and proposing next steps, while the ISE pledged to improve transparency and document current processes.
## Key Discussion Points
* **Purpose of the Independent Submissions Stream:** Debate around whether the IS stream serves as a true "escape valve" for dissenting opinions or primarily documents interoperability, vendor implementations, or humor (April Fools' RFCs).
* **Reliance on Individual ISE:** Concern that the system relies too heavily on the judgment of a single, part-time editor, lacking robust institutional support and potentially leading to inconsistent decisions.
* **RFC Brand Confusion:** Significant discussion on the potential for confusion between RFCs published through the IS stream and those representing IETF consensus, potentially diluting the value of the RFC designation. The potential for renaming the IS stream documents was raised.
* **IANA Registries:** Clarification that while the IS stream generally cannot create IANA registries, IANA itself has the authority to do so independently.
* **Handling of Cryptographic Algorithms:** Concern about the lack of expertise within the IS stream to properly review cryptographic primitives, especially those with limited peer review ("national crypto"). The meeting referenced an ongoing discussion within the Security Area (SEC) about publication standards for encryption. The IS stream has implemented warnings in Crypto RFCs about applicability and use at your own risk.
* **ISE Process Transparency:** The community expressed a desire for more visibility into the IS stream process, including submitted documents, review status, and ISE decision-making rationale.
* **ISE Reviewer Selection:** Editorial board members of the ISE were identified and their purpose was discussed. The ISE editor retains the right to select his reviewers.
* **Defining national crypto primitives:** There are no CFRG, IETF or ISC RFCs that define national crypto primitives, so no reason to begin now.
* **Perceived Stability of RFCs vs. Internet Drafts:** Some vendors prefer implementing RFCs over Internet Drafts due to the perceived stability and immutability of RFCs.
## Decisions and Action Items
* **IAB Action:** The IAB committed to reviewing the meeting feedback, considering recurring themes (especially the RFC brand), and proposing next steps before the next IETF meeting. Email to IAB or the ISE with other thoughts and input.
* **ISE Action:** The ISE will:
* Improve transparency by including more information in the Datatracker (document status, review availability).
* Document the current IS stream process and publish it as an independent submission.
* Consider implementing the suggestion of getting feedback in the form of documentation indicating RFCs that shouldn't have been published from community members.
* Implement warnings on crypto algorithms in documents that contain them indicating to use at your own risk.
* **Community Action:**
* Send reviews of documents currently in the ICE queue to the ISE, expressing support, concerns, or suggestions for improvement. CC the IAB in the comments.
* Consider providing the ISE with feedback about past ISE RFCs that have caused harm or were not useful.
* **RSWG Action:** The RSWG will consider the higher level policy issues raised at the meeting.
## Next Steps
1. The IAB will review the feedback and propose concrete next steps regarding the IS stream, particularly concerning the RFC brand and its relationship to IETF consensus.
2. The ISE will enhance transparency and document current IS stream processes.
3. The community is encouraged to provide feedback to the ISE and the IAB regarding specific documents and the overall operation of the IS stream.
4. The Security Area (SEC) will continue its discussions on publication standards for encryption and widely peer-reviewed crypto, which may inform IS stream practices.