Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure (RFC1871)
Original Publication Date: 1995-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2005-May-22
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
AbstractThis document describes a modification to the IETF procedures to allow an escape from a situation where the existing procedures are not working or do not seem to apply. This is a modification to the procedures of RFC 1602 and 1603.
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 1871 ISI
Updates: 1602, 1603 November 1995
Category: Best Current Practice
Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure
Status of this Memo
specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
describes a modification to the IETF procedures to
allow an escape from a situation where the existing procedures are
not working or do not seem to apply. This is a modification to the
procedures of RFC 1602 and 1603.
The current IETF
procedures are documented in "The Internet Standards
Process -- Revision 2" , and "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
There may be
situations where following the procedures leads to a
deadlock, or there may be situations where the procedures provide no
guidance. In these cases it may be appropriate to invoke the
variance procedure described below.
A revision of
the rules specified in RFC 1602 is underway, but may
take some time. This document describes an interim amendment to RFC
1602, to avoid having to wait for this major revision in a state of
from following the written rules must be a public
process with opportunity for all concerned parties to comment.
procedure should be similar to existing mechanisms and
involve existing bodies.
Best Current Practice
RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995
The Variance Procedure
recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of the
responsible ad hoc committee), the IESG may enter a particular
specification into, or advance it within, the standards track even
though some of the requirements of section 5 of RFC 1602 have not or
will not be met. The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only
if it first determines that the likely benefits to the Internet
community from entering or advancing the specification on the
standards track are likely to outweigh the costs to the Internet
community that result from noncompliance with section 5. In
exercising this discretion, the IESG shall consider (a) the technical
merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
goals of the Internet standards process w...