Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure (RFC1871)
Original Publication Date: 1995-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
This 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 document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 1871 ISI Updates: 1602, 1603 November 1995 BCP: 2 Category: Best Current Practice
Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This 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.
The current IETF procedures are documented in "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2" , and "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" .
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 paralysis.
Any variance from following the written rules must be a public process with opportunity for all concerned parties to comment.
The variance procedure should be similar to existing mechanisms and involve existing bodies.
Postel Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 1871 Variance Procedure November 1995
The Variance Procedure
Upon the 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 without granting a variance, (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG’s ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of section 5 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet community.
There are five aspects that are involved in the variance procedure: (1) detecting the pro...