Network Working Group B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational September 24, 2007
Expires: March 27, 2008
Proposed Changes to RFC 2026
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-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 March 27, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document proposes a number of changes to RFC 2026, the basic
definition of the IETF standards process. While some of them are
definite changes to the rules, the intention is to preserve the main
intent of the original rules, while adapting them to experience and
current practice.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Suggested Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Detailed Proposals for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section] . . . . . 23
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Editorial Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
1. Introduction
BCP 9 [RFC2026] has been the basis for the IETF standards process for
many years. RFC 2026 has been in force since 1996, and has proved
robust and adequately flexible for the main part. However, some
provisions have led to practical difficulties or lack clarity. The
changes proposed here are intended to tackle those issues.
NOTE IN DRAFT: This version is a basis for discussion and debate, on
the ietf@ietf.org list unless a specialized list is created.
This document is organized as follows. Firstly, there is an overview
of the suggested changes. Then, the proposed substantive changes are
listed and explained in textual sequence, illustrated with extracts
from RFC 2026. Even single-word changes are listed if they are
considered substantive. Then, the mandatory sections of any RFC are
included. Finally, an Appendix lists purely editorial issues that
will need to be handled in a new version of RFC 2026.
2. Overview of Suggested Changes
Where a suggestion needs some explanatory rationale, this is included
among the detailed changes.
o Rationalize the way in which standards are referenced and
numbered, by:
1. Assigning acronyms and numbers to standards at each stage of
the standards track, not just at the final stage;
2. Clarifying in all indexes that more recent standards obsolete
older ones regardless of their respective stages on the
standards track;
3. Formally abolishing the now pointless "STD 1" RFCs.
o Tidy up terminology and explanatory text in the standards track
definition.
* NOTE IN DRAFT: The proposals are based on the three stage
standards track, and assume a goal of adjusting the rules to
make it fully workable. If the IETF chose to reduce to a two
stage or one stage standards track, the proposals would be
modified.
o Place responsibility for initiating the advancement or deprecation
of stalled documents back in the community rather than expecting
the IESG to do it.
o Formalize the reality that non-Working Group documents of any kind
may be processed by the IETF and approved by the IESG.
o Clarify and simplify the description of Applicability Statements.
o Collate in one place the principles about normative references.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
o Give the IESG explicit authority to define the granularity of
interoperability testing.
o Simplify the variance process.
o Clarify that the appeals process applies to all decisions.
Additionally, there are several proposals for smaller changes that
are intended only for clarification and alignment with reality.
3. Detailed Proposals for Change
Extracts from RFC 2026 are presented verbatim in quotation marks,
preceded and followed by these markers:
"---------Begin Extract---------
-----------End Extract---------"
Proposed changes are presented as plain text.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The Internet Standards Process described in this document is
concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are
used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the
TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or
standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet
Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol
or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the
protocol itself.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the last sentence by:
In the case of protocols developed and/or standardized outside the
IETF, the Internet Standards Process may be applied to the use of the
protocol in the Internet context. Similarly, IETF protocols may be
cited in specifications developed elsewhere. The IETF will not
normally modify protocols developed elsewhere, and does not normally
permit its protocols to be modified elsewhere.
RATIONALE: The previous text did not allow for the complexity of
interaction between IETF and non-IETF protocols, nor set the proper
context for liaison relationships.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs)
...
The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and
other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
specification (see section 3).
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this paragraph and all other references to
STD1.
RATIONALE: This was written before a hyperlinked index was available
on line.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'
subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
"STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
series. (see section 4.1.3)
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the last sentence by:
When a specification has been approved for publication on the
standards track, it is assigned a Standard Number (e.g. 10) and a
Standard Acronym (e.g. SMTP), independent of its RFC number and its
place in the RFC series.
Acronyms may comprise sub-acronyms (e.g. SMTP/Submission) in the
case of multipart standards.
RATIONALE: The fact that only full Standards receive an STD number,
and possibly an acronym, is today a major source of confusion to
users of the standards, since these numbers and acronyms are not
associatd with PS and DS documents. Users do not, in fact, know
where to look for the latest standard, since a DS may obsolete an
STD, and a PS may obsolete either. It would be much less confusing
if a new or existing acronym was assigned as part of the initial
standards action (thus RFC 2821 would have been associated with
SMTP). Similarly, the STD number should be assigned at PS stage for
simpler tracking - thus RFC 2821 would also be known as PS10, for
example. (Also see comments on section 4.1.3.)
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace this paragraph by:
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. When such non-
standards track specifications are produced within the IETF, they are
subject to the rules of the IETF except those that concern only the
standards track and BCPs. Non-standards track IETF specifications
may be published as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs if
approved by the IESG. Note that additional paths to publication are
possible [RFC4844], [RFC4846].
RATIONALE: IETF Experimental or Informational RFCs are distinct from
independent submissions to the RFC Editor, which are now processed
under [RFC3932], and from IAB and IRTF documents. Also, we want all
IETF documents to be subject to many of our rules, such as the IPR
rules and the appeals process.
"---------Begin Extract---------
2.2 Internet-Drafts
During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
document are made available for informal review and comment by
placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving
working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
the process of review and revision.
An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace 'recommended' by 'considered'.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
RATIONALE: Expiry is inhibited when a draft enters IESG
consideration, not when it is approved.
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following two paragraphs:
Drafts are also removed from the directory after publication as an
RFC. However, all versions of all drafts are retained in the IETF
archive for legal reasons and may be subject to subpoena. Authors
should be aware that expired drafts are unofficially available in
many places. Authors may request expired drafts to be removed from
such availability, but this is outside the control of the IETF.
The published RFC will not be textually identical to the final
version of the draft. Not only will the required boilerplate text be
finalized; the RFC Editor will also make editorial corrections, and
any minor technical changes following IESG review will be applied.
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.1 Technical Specification (TS)
A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
procedure, convention, or format.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following paragraph:
Thus a TS is not limited to defining a wire protocol; it may for
example define an Application Programming Interface (i.e. a
convention) or a data definition such as a MIB or an IANA registry
(i.e. a format). However, a TS must be both implementable and
testable.
RATIONALE: Although clearly within the intended scope of RFC 2026,
these types of TS have been a source of debate and deserve
clarification. Also see later comments on implementation reports.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
...
A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent
for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently
specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that
effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use
within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the
particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different
system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete the 3rd sentence.
RATIONALE: The last sentence very unclear. Is it saying that a TS
doesn't contain operational guidelines? Quite often, the Operations
Area comments on a draft TS are, in effect, asking for operational
guidelines. If a TS refers to a timeout or some other behavioural
parameter, Operations people may insist on specifying a default value
and guidance about when to change the default. But the above
sentence could suggest that this belongs in a separate AS. In
practice, few authors separate such things from the basic
specification. The simplest resolution is to drop the whole
sentence.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS)
An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.
An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they
are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges
of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use
of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section
3.3).
An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted
"domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal
servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-
based database servers.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete these three paragraphs.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
RATIONALE: The community really doesn't have the habit of writing
this sort of separate AS; it's rare, and very rare in WG charters.
In fact, an AS of this style, covering a set of related TS documents
of various maturities, would be very similar to the type of Internet
Standards description document that was discussed by the newtrk WG.
It doesn't really fit anywhere in today's document taxonomy - it has
more significance than an Informational document, but doesn't belong
on the standards track because it can't be implemented and tested in
itself.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this paragraph.
RATIONALE: Firstly, this is not the community's normal understanding
of a conformance specification, which generally refers to product
certification. Secondly, in the IETF today, we use the word
"requirements" much more broadly, often for a front-end Informational
document when a WG is starting out.
"---------Begin Extract---------
An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
the Standard level.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Move this paragraph to a new general section on
normative reference requirements, and rewrite as:
A standards-track document should not have a higher maturity level in
the standards track than any standards-track document on which it
relies normatively.
RATIONALE: There is nothing specific to ASes in this rule; it is
applied globally wherever normative references occur. See comment
below on 4.2.4.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
3.3 Requirement Levels
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: The text should be reorganized to give this material
general scope for all standards-track and BCP documents.
RATIONALE: There is nothing specific to AS vs TS vs BCP in these
requirement levels.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more
detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found
in appropriate ASs.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the first two sentences by:
The RFC Editor web site displays current maturity and requirement
levels for each standards track and BCP document.
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK
-----------End Extract---------"
NOTE IN DRAFT: The following comments are based on the three stage
standards track, and assume a goal of adjusting the rules to make it
fully workable. If the IETF chose to reduce to a two stage or one
stage standards track, this would simplify things further and
appropriate editorial cuts and changes could be made.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
...
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.
2. Add text on the following lines:
Preliminary Standard is indeed the preliminary level. Implementors
should be aware that a PS may be revised or even withdrawn. However,
it is nevertheless common to use PS implementations operationally.
Many documents spend their entire active life as PS. Certain types
of specification, e.g. data formats such as MIBs, are likely to be
recycled at PS as they evolve rather than being promoted. This may
be a result of complexity, or due to intrinsic difficulties in
interoperability testing and normative dependencies.
RATIONALE: It is well known that to a large extent the warnings about
PS have been ignored, and that the Internet "runs on Proposed
Standards." Also, as the MIB doctors have observed, some types of
spec may benefit from being recycled at this level rather than being
"promoted." The name change makes the status more immediately
obvious.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.2 Draft Standard
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Rename as Interoperable Standard (IS).
RATIONALE: Just as "proposed" standard is effectively interpreted as
"preliminary", "draft standard" is effectively interpreted as
"definitive". Also we have the problem of confusion with "Internet-
Draft." A name change would reduce this risk of confusion and
clarify the factual status.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology
is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.
The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
specification.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following paragraph:
The IESG is empowered (subject to community consensus) to define the
level of granularity required in interpreting this requirement, and
how to demonstrate interoperability for specifications that do not
define wire protocols or have a single-ended nature.
RATIONALE: At least the four significant questions below arise
repeatedly in interpreting this rule. It seems best to leave this to
the IESG and its assessment of community consensus, rather than to
set rigid rules.
1. What is a "feature"? This can be interpreted in many ways. For
a TLV field is every separate type code a feature? Is every use
of a normative keyword [RFC2119] a feature?
2. Is it acceptable if features A and B are shown to be
interoperable between implementations X and Y, and features C and
D are shown to be interoperable between implentations P and Q?
In that case we have shown interoperability of features A, B, C
and D but have not shown that any implementation successfully
interoperates with all of them.
Since the goal is to use running code to verify that the
specification in question enables interoperability, not to test
whether the implementations comply, the answer appears to be yes.
(For the strong security requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365], the
Security Area, with the support of the IESG, has often insisted
that specifications include at least one mandatory-to-implement
strong security mechanism, in the interests of universal secure
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
interoperability. However, since the goal of the rule is to test
the specification, not the implementations, a mandatory-to-
implement requirement does not change the argument, even if some
implementations ignore it.)
3. Is it acceptable if both implementations X and Y show
interoperability with implementation Q, but the implementor of Q
is not party to the tests and does not make any statements about
features supported? In other words Q has merely served as an
active mirror in the tests.
4. How should we handle the issue of "single-ended" technical
specifications such as data formats, where there is no new
protocol whose interoperation we can verify? A practical
solution for MIBs has been documented [RFC2438] and some
generalisation of this seems to be needed.
"---------Begin Extract---------
In cases in which one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed.
The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet
Standard status along with documentation about testing of the
interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must
include information about the support of each of the individual
options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the
Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add this sentence:
The IESG is empowered (subject to community consensus) to define the
level of detail required in such implementation reports.
RATIONALE: Examining the database of reports collected over the years
at <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html>, the quality is
highly variable and some are very sparse and uninformative. Again,
it seems rational for the IESG to define what's acceptable.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.3 Internet Standard
...
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: This should be done as soon as a document enters the
standards track, and an acronym should be assigned too. Text is
proposed above as a comment on section 2.1, but should probably be
placed at the head of section 4.1.
RATIONALE: see above re section 2.1.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.2 Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add:
In practice, some Informational and Experimental RFCs that are
published following IESG Approval are very close to being a TS and
are evaluated almost as carefully as a TS. Others are more general.
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:
As mentioned above, some RFCs are published outside the IETF process;
see [RFC4844] and [RFC4846].
RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
inconsistency.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:
Documents intended to be published with Experimental or Informational
status via the IETF process, that are not the result of IETF Working
Group action, must be sponsored by an Area Director, in the same way
as a standards track or BCP document that is not the result of IETF
Working Group action. The IESG is empowered to define the procedures
for this.
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
RFCs.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by yet another reference to [RFC4846].
RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid
inconsistency.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
contribution to the Internet Standards Process.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:
To ensure that the independent submissions track is not misused to
circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG, the IAB and the
RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any
document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication
which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being
done, or expected to be done, within the IETF community. The IESG
shall review such a referred document within a reasonable period of
time, and recommend a course of action to the RFC Editor [RFC4846],
[RFC3932].
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.4 Historic
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
"Historic" is historical.)
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
-----------End Extract---------"
EDITOR'S NOTE: The first paragraph has not been implemented
consistently. In most cases a standards track RFC that has been
obsoleted by a more recent version is not listed in the RFC Index as
Historic, leading to user confusion about the correct version to use.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
It is suggested that the IESG takes action to correct this situation.
PROPOSED CHANGE: move the second paragraph to the new section
proposed in the comments on section 3.2. Also add there:
Standards track and BCP documents must, and other documents should,
distinguish between normative and informative references. Normative
references are those that are required reading to correctly
understand and implement a specification. Procedures exist to allow
normative references to less mature documents [RFC3967], [RFC4897].
RATIONALE: we need to clarify and collate the rules about normative
references.
EDITOR's NOTE: Down-references are a cause of publication delays. We
could simplify matters further with a new policy that simply says:
Documents on the standards track, or BCPs, may refer normatively to
any document on the standards track or to any BCP, as long as down-
level references are labelled as such in the list of references.
(Since we refer to RFCs, which are never changed after publication,
this change of rule would remain robust against features being
removed or changed after the citing document is published. However,
the change here compared to [RFC4897] is only that the down-ref need
not be mentioned during Last Call.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
...
While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are
composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the
technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities
themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders
in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
community's view of that issue.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add:
Such BCPs are subject to the normal process of IETF review and IESG
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
approval.
RATIONALE: Important clarification.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.1.1 Initiation of Action
A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.
It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less
than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
recommendation for action may be initiated.
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
the IESG.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace second paragraph by:
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, an agreement by an Area Director to
recommend a specification to the IESG. The IESG is empowered to
define the procedures for this.
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.1.3 Publication
...
An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This
shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
actions.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this.
RATIONALE: Pointless since the web came along.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
protocol and service specifications.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this.
RATIONALE: Pointless since the web came along.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track
...
Change of status shall result in republication of the specification
as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
all in the specification since the last publication. Generally,
desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next
standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
technical error that does not represent a change in overall function
of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such
cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
time-at-level clock.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add this:
Note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.
RATIONALE: Important clarification.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track
...
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace this by:
In normal practice, the IESG may be requested to advance any
standards-track specification that has been long enough in grade, or
to replace or deprecate any IETF document, by the relevant Working
Group if it exists, or by any individual participant(s) if not.
Additionally, when a standards-track specification has not reached
the highest level, but has remained at the same maturity level for at
least the required minimum period plus one year, any member(s) of the
community may request the IESG to review the viability of the
standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Such a request should include a
proposed action, with a justification and suitable Internet-Drafts if
appropriate. Following each such request, the IESG shall approve
termination or continuation of the development effort. At the same
time the IESG shall decide whether to maintain the specification at
the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for reviving or terminating a moribund
effort, and for marking obsolete specifications as such.
RATIONALE: This shifts the responsibility to initiate advancement or
deprecation of specifications to the community. No IESG has ever had
the cycles to initiate such actions, and it is much better practice
to delegate this responsibility. It also clarifies the difference
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
between normal advancement and the handling of moribund efforts.
QUESTION: Should we encourage or discourage the present habit of
closing a WG as soon as all its drafts are approved for PS. Should
we explicitly keep them alive at least until the 6 month timer for
PS->DS has popped?
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Move this up to a top-level section, with any small
updates to clarify that all WG and IESG decisions may be appealed.
RATIONALE: It's possible to read the current sub-section as applying
only to IESG actions described in this section 6. The IESG and IAB
have preferred to read it as applying to any decision whatever.
EDITOR's NOTE: Another approach would be to split this off as a
separate document, with its scope of applicability defined precisely
but broadly. Also experience suggests we should consider some
mechanism to deal with over-enthusiastic use of the appeal mechanism
by individuals.
"---------Begin Extract---------
8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING
...
As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working
Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must
make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and
included in the archives.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:
As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat. Each IETF Working Group must
maintain an email list archive, which may be that maintained by the
Secretariat, and must make a best effort to ensure that all traffic
except unsolicited commercial email is captured and included in the
archives.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.
"---------Begin Extract---------
9. VARYING THE PROCESS
...
The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the
precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a
variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including
consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.
The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG
shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to
allow for community comment upon the proposal.
-----------End Extract---------"
PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following text:
Alternatively, the proposed variance may be included in the document
concerned, in a separate section named "Process Variance". The
extended Last-Call requirement will still apply.
RATIONALE: The present process is clumsy. Why should the variance
not be built into the document that will benefit from it? Having it
separate is makework. Publishing it as a separate BCP is pointless
expense.
4. Security Considerations
This document has no security implications for the Internet.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no action by the IANA.
6. Acknowledgements
This document was initially constructed on the basis of an earlier
draft, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique. Useful comments on that
draft were made by Eric Gray, Luc Pardon, Pekka Savola, Magnus
Westerlund, Jeff Hutzelman, Mike Heard, Alfred Hoenes and others.
Later comments and suggestions were made by Douglas Otis, Robert
Sayre, Robert Elz, and others.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
Many suggestions in the present document are far from original and
many people deserve acknowledgement. Discussions in the former
NEWTRK working group and various drafts written in the context of
that WG or following its closure, and in the former PESCI design
team, were particularly influential. A bibliography of those drafts
has not been provided, since they have all expired under Section 2.2
of [RFC2026].
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
7. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section]
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-01: minor updates (sub-acronyms,
tightening argument about mandatory-to-implement features,
editorial), 2007-09-25
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00: original version, extracted and
modified from draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique, 2007-06-27
8. Informative References
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]
Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08
(work in progress), July 2004.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2438] O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner,
"Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards
Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438, October 1998.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
RFC 3365, August 2002.
[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, April 2005.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC4846] Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the
RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.
[RFC4897] Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, "Handling Normative References
to Standards-Track Documents", BCP 97, RFC 4897,
June 2007.
Appendix A. Editorial Corrections
This Appendix lists simple editorial issues in RFC 2026 that have
been noted during the preparation of the present document.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Abstract
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the
stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
document between stages and the types of documents used during this
process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and
copyright issues associated with the standards process.
-----------End Extract---------"
The last sentence is obsolete (see comment on Section 10).
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
1.1 Internet Standards
The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host
communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and
procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many
isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the
global Internet but use the Internet Standards.
-----------End Extract---------"
"Host-to-host" is strictly accurate, but today we tend to emphasise
the need for "end-to-end" communication. Also, our experience is
that isolated networks tend to get connected sooner or later.
However, these are subtle questions and it is proposed to remove the
architectural summary from this process document.
"---------Begin Extract---------
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs)
Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification
is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document
series. This archival series is the official publication channel for
Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,
and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of
Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other
Internet document-retrieval systems.
-----------End Extract---------"
Remove the reference to gopher.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see
Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC
publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the
general direction of the IAB.
-----------End Extract---------"
Add citations of [RFC4844] and [RFC4071].
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] is applied today.
It would probably be better to externalize this reference since it
remains in flux.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.3 Requirement Levels
...
(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional
within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS
creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a
particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user
may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For
example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an
environment where the DECNET protocol is used.
-----------End Extract---------"
Update the example.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
TSs.
-----------End Extract---------"
It would be much clearer to the reader if this was said at the
beginning of this section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
...
Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using
the process described in section 6.1.1.
-----------End Extract---------"
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
Move up front in this section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.1.3 Publication
If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be
removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
-----------End Extract---------"
"At that point" refers to the moment of publication of the RFC.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track
...
Change of status shall result in republication of the specification
as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
all in the specification since the last publication. Generally,
desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next
standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
technical error that does not represent a change in overall function
of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such
cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
time-at-level clock.
-----------End Extract---------"
Add a note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.
"---------Begin Extract---------
7.1 Use of External Specifications
To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
Internet community will not standardize a specification that is
simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification
-----------End Extract---------"
"IETF version"
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
9. VARYING THE PROCESS
...
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some
-----------End Extract---------"
The word is 'waiving'.
"---------Begin Extract---------
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
-----------End Extract---------"
This section is superseded by BCP 78 [RFC3978] and BCP 79 [RFC3979].
A simple reference should replace it.
Author's Address
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland, 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 Changes September 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Carpenter Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 29]