Network Working Group B. Fenner Internet-Draft AT&T Labs - Research Obsoletes: 1264 (if approved) May 30, 2006 Expires: December 1, 2006 RFC 1264 is Obsolete draft-fenner-obsolete-1264-01 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely different time in the life of the Internet. It prescribed rules to protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have various undesirable properties. In today's Internet, there are so many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just get in the way. Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006 1. Introduction RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc. These rules were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or unscalable new protocols. Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness. Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner. At the time of this writing, there is an IETF working group (newtrk) chartered to update the IETF Standards Process. Since this work is ongoing, we encourage those who believe there should be different rules for different types of protocols to participate in that work in order to clarify the qualifications. The biggest problem we've experienced is to perform a precise classification of when to apply additional constrains and when not to. The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to require additional implementation experience when it appears to be needed. We do not need any more rules than that. RFC 2026 says: Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation. The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet. 2. RFC 1264 is Obsolete Therefore, this document obsoletes RFC 1264. While that does not prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026 rules, it removes the broad, general requirement from all routing documents. 3. Working Group Procedures Some working groups within the Routing Area have developed Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006 procedures, based on RFC 1264, to require implementations before forwarding a document to the IESG. This action does not prevent those working groups from continuing with these procedures if the working group prefers to work this way. We encourage working groups to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output. 4. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. 5. Security Considerations While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the security- related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the requirement for a Security Considerations section) suffice. 6. Acknowledgements Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to today's Internet. This work was eventually abandoned when it was realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings, Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the goals of the IETF. 7. Normative References [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, Current Status INFORMATIONAL, October 1991. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, Updated by RFC3667, Updated by RFC3668, Updated by RFC3932, Updated by RFC3979, Updated by RFC3978, Current Status BEST CURRENT PRACTICE, October 1996. Note from RFC Editor: 8/29/05 - marked as obsoleting RFC 1871 according to messages with subject line: Subject: Housekeeping: obsoleting RFC 1871. and Subject: 2026 obsoletes 1871 Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006 Author's Address Bill Fenner AT&T Labs - Research 75 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA Phone: +1 650 330-7893 Email: fenner@research.att.com Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 5]