1. NEWTRK WG Paris, August 5, 2005

2. Agenda 0 – agenda bashing – 10m 1 - introduction & status - chair- 10m 0920 - discussion on the issues with ISD proposal raised by the IESG and others - 60m –What is ISD? –What is SRD? –What do we want? 3 - future of ISD proposal – 20m Larry’s implementation report idea – 5 min 5 - next steps with de-cruft – 30m 4 - next steps in newtrk - 30m –How/when to discuss 1step/2step

3. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: –the IETF plenary session, –any IETF working group or portion thereof, –the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, –the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, –any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, –the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 and RFC 3979. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3978 for details.

4. The IETF Mission The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better. The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.

5. Decision Points – ISD/SRD Should a type of grouping document exist? –*Rough* consensus: yes Should they be required? –Not now. Run an experiment. (PROTO?) Should they be approved? –Seems like consensus ”yes” (but some unclarity on the meaning) Should they be able to contain text? Should they normally contain text?

6. Scott’s points 1/ a meta document that is *the* definition of an IETF standard i.e. the document that people in and out of the IETF would point to to indicate a particular standard (for example purchasing agents and other standards organizations) 2/ the meta document would point to RFCs and other documents but would not necessarily be published as a RFC 3/ the meta document would be last-called in the same way that current standards track documents are whenever it changed 4/ standards creators or modifiers (usually working groups but sometimes individuals) would be responsible for the creation and modification of the meta documents for new or revised standards and thus there would be little additional work for the IESG - this process might even reduce the IESG workload by continuing the movement of responsibilities to WG chairs. 5/ meta documents would not be universal - the more complex standards (e.g. TCP) might take more effort than the return would warrant and there might not be anyone interested in making meta documents for some of the old but not much used standards 6/ the meta document would include some type of maturity description for example, a pointer to interoperability reports and a statement of significant usage (the things that currently define Draft and Internet Standards) 7/ the meta document provides an anchor for authoritative and non-authoritative errata and a mechanism for distinguishing between them