INTERNET-DRAFT R. Housley Updates: 2026 (if approved) Vigil Security Intended Status: BCP 1 September 2010 Expires: 5 March 2011 Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-02.txt Abstract This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two. {{ RFC Editor: please change "proposes" to "implements". }} Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 (http://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 Housley [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT September 2010 to this document. Housley [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT September 2010 1. Introduction This document proposes several changes to the Internet Standards Process defined in RFC 2026 [1]. In recent years, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has witnessed difficulty in advancing documents through the maturity levels: Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, and finally Standard. These changes are designed to simplify the IETF Standards Process and reduce impediments to standards progression while preserving the benefits of the IETF engineering approach. {{ RFC Editor: please change "proposes" to "implements". }} During May 2010, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) discussed the possible ways of reducing impediments to standards progression. Then, a plenary discussion at IETF 78 in July 2010 demonstrated significant support for transition from a three-tier maturity ladder to one with two tiers. In the current environment, many documents are published as Proposed Standards and never advance to a higher maturity level. Over time, this has resulted in IETF working groups and IESG members providing much more scrutiny than is called for by RFC 2026 [1] prior to publication as Proposed Standard. One desired outcome is to provide an environment where the IETF community is able to publish Proposed Standards as soon as rough consensus is achieved. Similarly, subsequent revisions to the documents ought to be easier to publish, whether the document is advancing on the maturity ladder or not. Maturity level advancement ought to be based on achieving interoperable implementations based on the IETF documents. Further, protocols are improved by removing complexity associated with features that are not used in practice. 2. The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard The requirements for Proposed Standard are unchanged; they remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. 3. The Second Maturity Level: Internet Standard This maturity level is a merger of Draft Standard and Standard as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. The chosen name avoids confusion between "Draft Standard" and "Internet-Draft". The criteria for advancing from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard are roughly the same as the current criteria for moving to Draft Standard as specified in RFC 2026 [1]. Housley [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT September 2010 Along with documentation of interoperability testing, the documentation must include information about the support of each of the options and features. Guidance on documenting the specific implementations which qualify the specification for Internet Standard status is provided in RFC 5657 [2]. It is important to choose an appropriate level of detail to document feature interoperability. The granularity of features described in a specification is necessarily very detailed. In contrast, the granularity of an implementation report need not be as detailed. One effective approach is to characterize the interoperability quality and testing approach, and then call out any known problems in either testing or interoperability. This implementation report must be submitted to the Area Director (AD). This implementation report should be provided to the AD with the protocol action request, which is described in Section 6 of RFC 2026 [1]. 4. No Third Maturity Level The final "Standard" maturity level is simply abolished. The benefit associated with a third maturity level has proven insufficient to justify the effort associated with document progression. The "Internet Standard" becomes the final maturity level. 5. Timing Requirements A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months. A specification may be, and indeed, is likely to be, revised as it advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. When a revised specification is proposed for advancement to Internet Standard, the IESG shall determine the scope and significance of the changes to the specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant revision may require that the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard before progressing. In practice the annual review of Proposed Standard and Draft Standard documents after two years called for in RFC 2026 [1] has not taken place. Lack of this review has not revealed any ill effects on the Internet Standards Process. As a result, the requirement for this review is dropped. No review cycle is imposed on standards track documents at any maturity level. 6. Downward References Permitted Internet Standards are allowed to make normative references to Proposed Standards. The rules that make references to documents at Housley [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT September 2010 lower maturity levels are a major cause of stagnation in the advancement of documents. This change allows an Internet Standard to freely reference features in any standards track RFC. The intent of this change is to enable expeditious promotion of Proposed Standards to Internet Standards. Downward references to Internet-Draft documents continue to be prohibited. 7. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels On the day these changes are published as a BCP, all existing Draft Standard and Standard documents automatically get reclassified as Internet Standard documents. Corresponding changes would be made to the RFC Index and other features of the RFC Editor web site. 8. Open Question Regarding STD Numbers Under current practice, a STD number is assigned only when a document (or document set) reaches the full Standard maturity level. In several situations, an RFC that has reached the full Standard maturity level has been obsoleted by a RFC at Proposed Standard maturity level, causing great confusion about which specification ought to be implemented. During the IETF 78 plenary discussion, several people advocated abandoning STD numbers. These people felt that the confusion associated with these numbers out weights their value. Other people felt that the ability to assign one number to a collection of Internet Standards was very valuable. This document makes no change to the current STD practice; however, this topic deserves further discussion by the whole community. 9. Security Considerations This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet. 10. IANA Considerations This document requests no action by the IANA. {{ RFC Editor: Please delete this section before publication. }} 11. Acknowledgements A two-tier standards track proposal has been proposed many times. Spencer Dawkins, Charlie Perkins, and Dave Crocker made a proposal in Housley [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT September 2010 2003. Another proposal was made by Scott Bradner in 2004. Another proposal was made by Brian Carpenter in June 2005. Another proposal was made by Ran Atkinson in 2006. This document takes ideas from many of these prior proposals; it also incorporates ideas from the IESG discussion in May 2010 and the IETF 78 plenary discussion in July 2010. 12. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Dusseault, L., and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. Author's Address Russell Housley Vigil Security, LLC 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon, VA 20170 USA Email: housley@vigilsec.com Housley [Page 6]