Analysing Internet Standards Data

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 January 2027.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Internet technologies are developed and standardised by a range of standards development organisations (SDOs), including the IETF, along with 3GPP, IEEE, ITU-T, W3C, and others. The standards these organisations produce underpin the interoperability and architectural evolution of the Internet and the Web.¶

Understanding how Internet standards are developed, including, for example, who participates in the standards process, what collaborations occur during the development of standards, how the process is organised and governed, and how the technical outputs evolve prior to publication, is important to support analysis and development of the standards ecosystem. Such analysis can assist with monitoring standards development organisations, evaluating the evolution of technical work, and understanding technology deployment, and can ultimately be used to inform community leadership and governance discussions [RFC9307].¶

This document outlines issues to consider for studying data from the Internet standards development ecosystem. It aims to:¶

• identify observable components of the Internet standards development ecosystem;¶

• describe considerations for measuring and analysing the standards development process;¶

• provide a taxonomy of possible measurements and analytical approaches;¶

• highlight methodological, interpretive, and ethical considerations;¶

• illustrate the application of these methods to the IETF, given the availability of rich data about the IETF participants, documents, processes, and communication channels;¶

• discuss the relevance and limits of applying these methods to other SDOs and the extent to which differences in governance, transparency, and data availability affect such analysis; and¶

• encourage reproducible research practises and transparent analysis.¶

This document does not prescribe specific metrics, define evaluation criteria, or recommend approaches to comparative rankings of standards bodies, groups, or participants.¶

2. Standards Development as a Socio-Technical System

Internet standards development can be understood as a socio-technical system in which technical artefacts, human participants, organisational interests, and governance processes interact over time. Standards do not emerge solely from technical design choices, nor solely from institutional processes; rather, they arise through structured collaboration among individuals and organisations operating within formal [RFC2026] and informal rules [Cath2017] [Simcoe2011] [Simcoe2012] [Simcoe2014].¶

Technical outputs emerge from a process in which engineering choices interact with expertise, incentives, organisational structures, review processes, historical precedent, deployment constraints, and the cultural norms and practises of the standards community. At the same time, the organisational and cultural context is not fixed: governance structures, working practises, and community norms evolve together over time and these changes in turn shape future participation and technical decision-making [Baron2024].¶

For analytical purposes, standards development organisations can be viewed as comprising several interacting components:¶

• Participants: Participants are the individuals who contribute to standards development. They may include engineers, implementers, network operators, industry researchers, academics, independent contributors, civil society representatives, policymakers, and others with relevant expertise or interests. Participation criteria differ across SDOs. Some permit open participation, while others restrict and structure participation through organisational- or state-based membership, sometimes with additional exceptions or parallel open mechanisms.¶

  Participation models affect standards development by shaping both who is able to contribute, and how they are permitted to contribute. Open participation can broaden the pool of contributors and make it easier for individuals to join without specific institutional affiliation, potentially increasing diversity of experience and viewpoints. At the same time, openness does not eliminate all the barriers to participation. Effective participation may still depend on having sufficient time, funding, employer support, travel resources, and familiarity with the processes, tools, and norms of the community. Membership-based models can provide clearer institutional commitment and resourcing, but they can also limit participation to those acting through recognised organisations or membership categories [Cath2021a] [Cath2023] [Baron2024].¶

• Organisations: Participants are often affiliated with organisations such as companies, consultancies, academic institutions, civil society groups, or governments. These organisations may provide support for participation, including but not limited to funding, staff time, technical or other expertise, and implementation or operational experience.¶

  The relationship between participants and organisations is not equally visible across SDOs. In some models, participation is individual and so any recorded affiliation may be incomplete, and may reflect a specific contribution rather than the sustained view of the participant. In other models, where individuals participate on behalf of a clearly indicated affiliation, there may be a clearer link to an institutional position.¶

  Even where affiliations are recorded, they may not fully describe the organisational context. A company may be a subsidiary of another company (or in the process of becoming so), and consultants or contractors may work for clients whose interests are not directly visible in participation records.¶

• Technical Groups: SDOs typically organise their work through technical groups such as working groups, research groups, study group, committees, or similar bodies. These groups define scope, coordinate discussion, and develop technical outputs. They are not always organised as a single flat layer, with hierarchical and other structures in use.¶

  The number, names, and functions of these structures differ across organisations. In some cases, they reflect administrative oversight or broad technical areas; in others, they distinguish between different forms of technical development.¶

• Artefacts: Standards development processes generate artefacts such as drafts, specifications, recommendations, reports, agendas, minutes, presentations, issue trackers, and final published standards. These artefacts provide an observable record of technical development. Revision histories, references, and relationships between artefacts may help reveal aspects such as participation dynamics, design iteration, and the evolution of the underlying technologies subject to standardisation.¶

  Different SDOs vary in how openly they make such information available and in how easily it can be accessed and reused. Artefact availability can support the work of participants, researchers, and other observers, but collecting, maintaining, publishing, and organising this information also imposes costs on SDOs.¶

• Collaboration Infrastructure: Standards development requires communication and collaboration among participants to propose work, discuss technical issues, review contributions, coordinate activity, resolve disagreements, and build support for possible outcomes. SDOs therefore rely on systems such as mailing lists, messaging systems, code repositories, teleconferences, and meetings to facilitate this debate.¶

  The mix of communication, collaboration, and coordination mechanisms differs across SDOs, often to support the other attributes described.¶

• Governance Structures: Standards bodies have formal governance structures, with charters specifying the scope of different activities, defined leadership roles, review and approval stages, appeals processes, voting rules, consensus procedures, and so on. These structures define how work is initiated, scoped, reviewed, approved, and contested.¶

  At the same time, influence is also exercised through reputation, recognised expertise, community norms, procedural familiarity, and control over agendas, drafting, or review capacity. Governance structures therefore shape how decisions are made, how priorities are established, how disagreements are managed, and, ultimately, how influence is distributed within standards development [Farrell2012] [Simcoe2011] [Simcoe2012] [RFC7282] [Khare2022] [Barnes2024] [Zhang2025].¶

• Standards Implementation and Deployment: Implementation usually occurs outside the formal standards process, and may be voluntary by interested parties or mandated by policy in certain jurisdictions.¶

  In many cases, publication of a standard does not by itself require implementation. Adoption may therefore vary widely. Some standards are widely deployed, while others see limited or no implementation. Adoption may also be shaped by factors outside the standards process, including regulation, procurement, cost, and compatibility with existing systems.¶

  Data on implementation and operational use is often difficult to find [RFC5218] [Nikkhah2017] [McQuistin2021] [RFC8980] [RFC8963].¶

Measuring SDO activity is challenging. Observable metrics such as publication counts, message volume, attendance figures, authorship, or leadership roles can provide useful evidence, but each captures only part of the standards process. Analysis of artefacts and patterns of communication from the collaboration infrastructure (e.g., analysis of mailing list messages) can provide more detail and nuance, at the expense of additional complexity, but even these cannot provide a complete view [RFC9307] [Khare2022] [Barnes2024][McQuistin2021].¶

There are several reasons for this. One is that critical aspects of standards development are hard to observe directly. The culture of the SDOs, influence of individuals, groups, and ideas, agenda setting, informal coordination, negotiation, and the practical exercise of power and authority may not be well represented by any single metric, or group of metrics, and are extremely challenging to infer from communication patterns or even the content of archived messages [Simcoe2011] [Khare2022]. Further, the available context is often limited. Data availability and quality vary across SDOs, and different parts of the process are not equally observable. Even within a single SDO, some information may be incomplete, difficult to access, inconsistently structured, or unavailable. Context and insights from participant interviews may reveal more detail [Cath2021a], but such ethnographic research requires specific expertise to be effective [Cath2021b].¶

Combining multiple data sources introduces additional challenges. Observations from different SDOs, or from different parts of a single SDO, may not share stable identifiers, identifiers may change over time, and the same entity may appear in different forms across records. Voluntary declarations, non-standard terminology, and organisational changes such as mergers or acquisitions may further complicate linkage.¶

Metrics, artefacts, and other data sources may also differ in accuracy, representativeness, and relevance. Not all artefacts have the same significance, not all forms of participation have the same effect, and visible activity does not necessarily correspond to implementation, adoption, or wider impact. Measures should therefore be interpreted cautiously and, where possible, considered alongside complementary indicators [RFC9307] [McQuistin2021].¶

3. Analysing the IETF

IETF participation is open to all, with no formal membership. Individuals can participate by joining the mailing lists, contributing to discussions, submitting Internet-Drafts, and attending meetings. Contributions ordinarily reflect the opinion of participants, and not necessarily their affiliation [RFC2026].¶

The IETF has a hierarchical group structure, comprising technical working groups organised into distinct areas, along with a corresponding hierarchy of management roles that individuals may fill including working group chairs and area directors [Barnes2024] [Baron2024].¶

Reflecting its open participation model, much of the IETF's processes are publicly observable through open records and dedicated APIs. Mailing lists are a central forum for working group discussion, alongside meetings. Some groups also use externally hosted repositories, for example on GitHub, to support artefact preparation and issue discussion [Welzl2021] [Khare2022].¶

4. Analysing Other SDOs

Standards relevant to the Internet and the Web are also developed within the 3GPP, IEEE, ITU-T, W3C, and others. Each organisation has its own governance model, participation structure, institutional culture, and data availability. These differences affect both what can be observed, and how observations should be interpreted [Simcoe2014] [Cath2021a].¶

5. Data Processing

Significant processing effort is required to clean, normalise, and link data records before they can be processed.¶

The same participant may appear across each of the data sources with different identifiers, including names, email addresses, usernames. These identifiers may change over time. Entity resolution (using exact and heuristic matching) is feasible in many instances, but requires careful validation to prevent the introduction of errors into later analyses. Entity resolution of organisations is similarly challenging, where companies may be subsidiaries of another, might merge or be acquired, or, given the unstructured nature of the dataset, appear under different names (to illustrate the scope of the entity resolution problem note that, as of May 2026, there are 282 variants of the name "Huawei" in the IETF Datatracker). Information external to the Datatracker, and other data sources, is often needed to process organisational data [Khare2022] [McQuistin2021].¶

Participants may have more than one affiliation, including across the lifetime of a particular contribution (e.g., an Internet-Draft). Affiliation data is only recorded for a subset of activities, and may need to be inferred (e.g., from corporate domain names) in other cases. Affiliation data, where recorded, indicates the participant's affiliation at moment in time for a particular contribution, making it difficult to form a continuous history.¶

Document life cycles are non-linear, and documents might pass through multiple working groups, be replaced or updated by later drafts, and change authorship and status over time. There are numerous exceptions to the published document life cycle.¶

Working group and research group leadership, and membership of bodes such as the IESG, IRSG, and IAB, is difficult to accurately reconstruct. Knowing who chaired a working group during a particular period, or which area a given group belonged to at a given time, requires the reconstruction of a timeline from historical event records held in the Datatracker. These records can be incomplete or inconsistently formatted [Barnes2024] [Baron2024].¶

Email metadata and message content presents a number of challenges. A significant number of messages contain malformed or archaic header fields that cannot easily be processed using widely used email parsing libraries and need correction. Mail clients perform the threading of messages in different ways, with the separation between new and quoted text becoming unclear. Natural language processing of message content requires contextualisation, with informal conventions, technical vocabulary, and the use of acronyms, all of which may evolve over time, presenting challenges that are unique to the dataset [Niedermayer2017] [Welzl2021].¶

The quality of the IETF dataset degrades significantly for historical records. Data that was not gathered by the Datatracker at the time, or that has been subject to partial backfilling later, must be treated with caution, both in terms of data processing and later analyses [RFC9307].¶

6. Ethics and Data Protection

Data is made available by the IETF, and other Internet SDOs, subject to their particular privacy and data protection policies and terms of use. For the IETF, these are described at https://www.ietf.org/privacy-statement/; other SDOs will have their own policies.¶

The available data includes considerable amounts of personal information that is potentially sensitive and subject to legal restrictions on processing and use in many jurisdictions (e.g., the GDPR in Europe). Researchers must ensure that their use of such data conforms to any applicable regulations. It is important to note that the regulations that apply to research use of such data may differ from those that apply to the IETF, or other SDOs, with regards to their use of the data as part of the standards process.¶

Researchers must ensure that their research, in particular research that involves personal data from the IETF or other SDOs, is conducted ethically and with respect for persons, in careful consideration of the risks and benefits of the work, taking care to ensure that those who bear the risk also gain some benefit, and with respect for the law and public interest. Researchers should consult with their organisation's Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee, or similar, prior to conducting research that might raise ethical concerns, and are referred to the guidance in the Menlo Report [Menlo], the Belmont Report [Belmont], and the ACM Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects [ACM] for further discussion of issues around ethical conduct of research.¶

Researchers are reminded that while data may be public, the implications of that data are not always well-known. For example, data that can be collected from the IETF Datatracker makes it possible to derive measures of the effectiveness of individuals in certain roles that, if presented out of context, might be considered sensitive [RFC9307]. It is inappropriate to publish data about specific individuals without their explicit consent.¶

Finally, we note that researchers must take care to avoid disruption to the Internet standards process. In part, this requires that they consult with the operations staff in the IETF LLC, or other SDOs, to ensure their data access does not cause operational difficulties (e.g., overload of servers that might disrupt an ongoing meeting). More broadly, researchers should ensure that any results that might be considered sensitive or disruptive are responsibly disclosed to the affected parties prior to publication. The effective operation of the Internet standards process directly affects critical global infrastructure, and researchers should be mindful of this when presenting results.¶

7. Recommendations

Analysis of Internet standards development data is useful to support transparency and provide insight into the health, structure, and evolution of the Internet standards ecosystem, including patterns of participation, collaboration, concentration, and the development of technologies [RFC9518]. It can inform discussions within SDOs and provide indicators of how technical work progresses over time [Simcoe2006] [Simcoe2012] [Ganglmair2025]. Such analysis can also inform broader Internet governance questions, such as how decision-making is structured, how participation is distributed, and the extent of centralisation in these processes [RFC9518]. This information can be useful to external stakeholders, including regulators, policy makers, and civil society, seeking to understand how standards are developed and governed.¶

Analysis of standards development is constrained by what can be observed. Important aspects of the Internet standards development process, such as informal discussions ("many fine lunches and dinners" [Rose1989]), trust relationships, institutional memory, cultural norms, and the exercise of influence may be only partially visible. In addition, available data is often incomplete, inconsistently structured, and shaped by changes in tools and processes over time, with historical records in particular being sparse or unreliable.¶

As a result, analyses based on these data provide only a partial view of the process. Quantitative metrics such as message volume, authorship, participation counts, or leadership roles can be useful indicators, but do not directly capture influence, authority, or impact [Simcoe2011] [Khare2022]. They should therefore be interpreted with care and in context, rather than in isolation.¶

Where data is derived or reconstructed (e.g., via entity resolution, affiliation inference, or automated extraction) it is important to retain a clear link to the original sources. The provenance of such transformations should be documented, and derived data should be distinguishable from primary records [RFC9307]. This allows results to be checked and, where necessary, corrected.¶

SDOs can support analysis of their processes by ensuring that the data they produce remains consistent, well-structured, and accessible over time. This includes maintaining clear, timestamped documentation of artefacts and processes, recording changes and their implications, and using consistent data formats and identifiers. Providing structured access to data, for example through stable and well-documented APIs can be especially helpful. When introducing changes to tools, processes, or working practises, it is important to consider how these affect what is recorded and how it can be analysed. Where changes introduce discontinuities these should be clearly documented, including their scope and implications, so that their impact on the data can be understood and accounted for in subsequent analysis.¶

Comparisons across standards development organisations require particular care. Differences in governance, participation models, and transparency affect both what is observable and how it should be interpreted. Apparent differences between organisations may reflect these structural factors rather than substantive differences in behaviour or outcomes [Simcoe2014].¶

Finally, although much of the data used in this type of analysis is publicly available, its use still raises ethical questions. Analyses can have implications for individuals and organisations, especially if results are presented without sufficient context. Researchers should take care in how findings are reported, particularly where they relate to identifiable participants.¶

8. Security Considerations

Research into the operation of the Internet standards development ecosystem does not directly affect the security of the Internet. Effective operation of the Internet standards process is, however, critical to the security of the network, and researchers studying the development of Internet standards must consider potential security implications of their results and ensure that any such implications are responsibly disclosed to the relevant SDO. Examples might include, but are not limited to, research that discovers attempts to subvert or disrupt the operation of the standards process.¶

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.¶

10. Informative References

[ACM]

ACM Publications Board, "ACM Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects", n.d., <https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects>.

[Barnes2024]

Barnes, M. R., Karan, M., McQuistin, S., Perkins, C., Tyson, G., Purver, M., Castro, I., and R. G. Clegg, "Temporal Network Analysis of Email Communication Patterns in a Long Standing Hierarchy", Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Volume 18, Number 1, pages 126-138, 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31302>.

[Baron2024]

Baron, J. A., Ganglmair, B., Persico, N., Simcoe, T., and E. Tarantino, "Representation Is Not Sufficient for Selecting Gender Diversity", Research Policy Volume 53, Number 6, Article 104994, 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104994>.

[Belmont]

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, "The Belmont Report - Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research", n.d., <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/>.

[Cath2017]

Cath, C. and L. Floridi, "The Design of the Internet's Architecture by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Human Rights", Science and Engineering Ethics Volume 23, Number 2, pages 449-468, 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9793-y>.

[Cath2021a]

Cath, C., "The Technology We Choose to Create: Human Rights Advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force", Telecommunications Policy Volume 45, Number 6, Article 102144, 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102144>.

[Cath2021b]

Cath, C., "Changing Minds and Machines: A Case Study of Human Rights Advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)", PhD thesis University of Oxford, 2021, <https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9b844ffb-d5bb-4388-bb2f-305ddedb8939>.

[Cath2023]

Cath, C., "Loud Men Talking Loudly: Exclusionary Cultures of Internet Governance", Critical Infrastructure Lab Document Series CIL003, 2023, <https://criticalinfralab.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/LoudMen-CorinneCath-CriticalInfraLab.pdf>.

[Farrell2012]

Farrell, J. and T. Simcoe, "Choosing the Rules for Consensus Standardization", The RAND Journal of Economics Volume 43, Number 2, pages 235-252, 2012, <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2012.00164.x>.

[Ganglmair2025]

Ganglmair, B., Simcoe, T., and E. Tarantino, "Learning When to Quit: An Empirical Model of Experimentation in Standards Development", American Economic Journal: Microeconomics Volume 17, Number 3, pages 164-190, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20190321>.

[Hares2022]

Hares, S., "Solidarity as an Antecedent of Consensus Decision-Making - A Mixed-Mode Study", December 2024, <http://www.hickoryhill-consulting.com/SusanHares-EditedManuscript.pdf>.

[Khare2022]

Khare, P., Karan, M., McQuistin, S., Perkins, C., Tyson, G., Purver, M., Healey, P., and I. Castro, "The Web We Weave: Untangling the Social Graph of the IETF", Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Volume 16, Number 1, pages 500-511, 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19310>.

[McQuistin2021]

McQuistin, S., Karan, M., Khare, P., Perkins, C., Tyson, G., Purver, M., Healey, P., Iqbal, W., Qadir, J., and I. Castro, "Characterising the IETF Through the Lens of RFC Deployment", Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference pages 137-149, 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3487552.3487821>.

[McQuistin2023]

McQuistin, S., Karan, M., Khare, P., Perkins, C., Purver, M., Healey, P., Castro, I., and G. Tyson, "Errare Humanum Est: What Do RFC Errata Say about Internet Standards?", Proceedings of the 7th Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference pages 169-177, 2023, <https://doi.org/10.23919/TMA58422.2023.10198980>.

[Menlo]

US Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, "The Menlo Report - Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research", August 2012, <https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCORE-20120803_1.pdf>.

[Niedermayer2017]

Niedermayer, H., Schwellnus, N., Raumer, D., Cordeiro, E., and G. Carle, "Information Mining from Public Mailing Lists: A Case Study on IETF Mailing Lists", Internet Science Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 10673, pages 301-309, 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_23>.

[Nikkhah2017]

Nikkhah, M., Mangal, A., Dovrolis, C., and R. Guerin, "A Statistical Exploration of Protocol Adoption", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Volume 25, Number 5, pages 2858-2871, 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2017.2711642>.

[RFC2026]

Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.

[RFC5218]

Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5218>.

[RFC7282]

Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282>.

[RFC8729]

Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>.

[RFC8963]

Huitema, C., "Evaluation of a Sample of RFCs Produced in 2018", RFC 8963, DOI 10.17487/RFC8963, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8963>.

[RFC8980]

Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development", RFC 8980, DOI 10.17487/RFC8980, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8980>.

[RFC9307]

ten Oever, N., Cath, C., Kühlewind, M., and C. S. Perkins, "Report from the IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021", RFC 9307, DOI 10.17487/RFC9307, September 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9307>.

[RFC9518]

Nottingham, M., "Centralization, Decentralization, and Internet Standards", RFC 9518, DOI 10.17487/RFC9518, December 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9518>.

[Rose1989]

Rose, M., "The Open Book: A Practical Perspective on OSI", Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, , 1989.

[Rysman2008]

Rysman, M. and T. Simcoe, "Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations", Management Science Volume 54, Number 11, pages 1920-1934, 2008, <https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0919>.

[Simcoe2006]

Simcoe, T., "Delay and De Jure Standardization: Exploring the Slowdown in Internet Standards Development", Standards and Public Policy Chapter 8, pages 260-295, 2006, <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493249.009>.

[Simcoe2011]

Simcoe, T. S. and D. M. Waguespack, "Status, Quality, and Attention: What's in a (Missing) Name?", Management Science Volume 57, Number 2, pages 274-290, 2011, <https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1270>.

[Simcoe2012]

Simcoe, T., "Standard Setting Committees: Consensus Governance for Shared Technology Platforms", American Economic Review Volume 102, Number 1, pages 305-336, 2012, <https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.305>.

[Simcoe2014]

Simcoe, T., "Governing the Anticommons: Institutional Design for Standard-Setting Organizations", Innovation Policy and the Economy Volume 14, Number 1, pages 99-128, 2014, <https://doi.org/10.1086/674022>.

[Welzl2021]

Welzl, M., Oepen, S., Jaskula, C., Griwodz, C., and S. Islam, "Collaboration in the IETF: An Initial Analysis of Two Decades in Email Discussions", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Volume 51, Number 3, pages 29-32, 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3477482.3477488>.

[Zhang2025]

Zhang, Y., McQuistin, S., Karan, V., Ramirez-Centeno, H., Perkins, C., Tyson, G., and I. Castro, "Two Decades of IETF Affiliations: Evolution and Impact", Proceedings of the 2025 Applied Networking Research Workshop pages 17-23, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3744200.3744757>.

Acknowledgments

This document builds on work funded, in part, by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grants EP/S033564/1 and EP/S036075/1.¶

Authors' Addresses