Network Working Group J. Klensin Internet-Draft June 6, 2004 Expires: December 5, 2004 Repurposing the STD Designation draft-klensin-newtrk-std-repurposing-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 5, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Over the years, it has been repeatedly observed that the STD nnnn and BCP nnnn designation for IETF Standards has not worked well, either as a stable reference for external specifications or as a combined reference for multiple documents that are linked together into a single specification. This document proposes two changes that have been discussed on and off for some time, but never written up or considered as specific proposals. The first of these would assign a STD (or BCP) number to a specification when it enters the first level of the Standards Track (or is first designated as a BCP). The second would turn STDs and BCPs into actual documents that describe what Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 they identify and their publication and change history. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Proposal Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. A New Document Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Content and Organization of an STD Document . . . . . . . . 6 5. Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References to STDs or References to RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 1. Introduction The "STD" and "BCP" labels are described in [RFC2026] as subseries of the RFC series, with their numbers being assigned when documents are published as Internet Standards or as BCPs. Beyond those brief statements, the organization of the two series, the classification of documents as either belonging together as part of a single "STD" specification or as separate, have largely been a matter of oral tradition, with more of the decisions being made as part of the RFC indexing process than explicitly by the IESG as part of the standards process. The intent has been to permit a stable reference to particular specifications and groups of documents making up a specification, a reference that survives replacement of one RFC with another, addition or deletion of RFCs from the collective specification, and so on. While the intentions are fairly clear and quite desirable, this document suggests that the system has never worked well, especially for STDs that comprise (or point to) several RFCs. There is no easily-accessible audit track that specifies which documents were part of an STD at a particular time (which can be very important for determining what a specification that points to an STD actually means or requires). The low level of involvement of the IESG in the classification process is probably several problems waiting to happen. And the "do not assign an STD number until the specification reaches full Internet Standard" model is unrealistic in a world in which much of the Internet runs on Proposed Standards and in which the IETF only very rarely approves and publishes "Applicability Statement" documents (and, when it does publish them, has little idea what to do with them -- several documents that rationally fall into that category have been published as BCPs instead). This document is intended as a very specific supplement and addition to [WhatStandards] and is believed to be consistent with its general analysis and the issues it raises. However, its emphasis is on a paper track and specific "benchmark" or "snapshot" documentation, not on web pages and bug tracking. On the other hand, the ideas proposed here could provide some of the anchoring for the "label system" that is required by the suggestions of that document. The discussion and proposal that follows are written in terms of traditional standards track documents (Proposed, Draft, and Internet Standard). Whether it should also be applied to BCPs needs further review: the applicability is fairly obvious, but it is not clear whether it is necessary enough to justify the extra trouble. Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 2. Proposal Overview This document proposes that "STD"s be turned into real documents, separate from the underlying RFCs and managed under the direction of the IESG as part of the standards-specification process, rather than being simply pointers in indexes (or the RFCs under different file names or packaging). It proposes that STD documents be created and numbers assigned when specifications enter the formal standards track (Proposed Standard under the model described in RFC 2026) and that the documents be used to track maturation, applicability recommendations, and history of those specifications. It also outlines the format of those documents, which is expected to be different from the format of protocol specification documents and the RFC series generally ([RFC2223], [rfc2223bis]) and briefly discusses a transition strategy. While it is debatable whether everything published as a Proposed Standard today deserves, on the basis of quality of consensus or implementations, that definition, these documents and the early adoption of STD numbers may, on the one hand, help focus and discussion on that point and will, on the other, permit the IESG to attach appropriate qualifying notes as needed. For example, if the community concluded that a specification should be published as a Proposed Standard, but that potential implementers should be warned that IETF confidence in its stability was lower than usual, these documents would be an appropriate place to publish that type of evaluation. Conversely, if interoperable implementations already existed before the Proposed Standard was published, the corresponding STD document would be an appropriate place to note that fact. These documents, and documents authoritatively (normatively) referenced from them, will become, essentially, the definitions of standards. Consequently, any changes to them will occur only under IESG authority and responsibility. The IESG may, at its discretion, and with appropriate announcements to, and consultation of, the community, delegate authority for some sections to groups responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the standards, but may not relinquish responsibility for the documents themselves. However, nothing in this specification prohibits (or requires) IESG authorization of placement of links in the STD documents that point to less formal and less authoritative discussions of, or comments on, the relevant standards should they deem that appropriate. [[ Note in Draft: In plain English, if it makes sense to the community to have an archive of comments, discussion, or proposed errata on the documents, that is fine, and it would be useful for these documents to identify the locations of those archives. But we should be very careful that the contents of such archives are not Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 confused with the content of the specifications unless they go through some sort of formal review and consensus process. The description of that process above is deliberately open-ended and flexible, as long as the IESG is willing to accept and maintain formal responsibility for whatever appears on those pages and could admit of some changes being made by, e.g., maintenance committees should the community want to move in that direction. ]] By extension from the above, the IESG will need to make determinations, ideally after creating guidelines and getting community review and assent to them, as to criteria (e.g., length, importance, degree of discussion needed) by which authoritative comments and qualifications about standards will be incorporated into the STDs documents or issued as separate RFCs. [[ Note in Draft: The author presumes that common sense will prevail and that this document does not need to try to specify those boundaries. If that assumption is not correct, we have other problems that this type of specification cannot solve. ]] If this proposal is accepted in principle, some additional sections will be required to explicitly update RFC 2026. 3. A New Document Series When the IESG agrees to move a document onto the standards track, it either causes a new standard number ("STD number") to be assigned to it, or classifies it as part of an existing standard and assigns that number. If multiple, related, specifications are approved at the same time, they may be assigned the same STD number. As those documents are published as RFCs, the RFC may (and presumably usually will) contain the standard number since it will constitute a stable forward reference. This assignment of an STD number, and assignment of a specification to it, results in a corresponding STD document being created or updated, as described below. Following good sense and existing precedent, the IESG may decide to include documents that are not themselves on the standards track (e.g., Informational documents explaining, or describing alternatives to, an agreed-upon standard) in references from a STD document once that document is defined by the assignment of a number. Advancement of a document on the standards track, publication of applicability statements, notes on errata or other issues of sufficient and substantive importance to require alerting implementers or the community will also result in modifications to the relevant STD document. It is explicitly anticipated that documents may be moved from one maturity level to another (i.e., under the current system, to Draft, Full, or Historic, or from Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 Experimental to Proposed) by changing the STD document to identify the new level and include any relevant notes as an alternative to modifying the relevant RFC text and issuing new RFCs (and, of course, modifying the STD document to reflect those changes). Particular RFCs may move in and out of a STD (except for the historical record) as one RFC replaces another. Because the STD document is expected to contain prose, it will be possible to deal with the long-standing issues of what "updates" means by identifying the relevant sections or concepts. And, again because there is descriptive prose present, the IESG will be able to deal appropriately with the relationship between an old Full Standard and a newer document, at a lower maturity level, that is intended to replace it by specifying whatever they consider appropriate about what the implementer or other reader should look at. [[ Note in draft: Were either or both of the "Commission" (or "attic-cleaning") drafts ([NewtrkHistoric], [NewtrkAntique]) to be approved, the opportunities for using this STD model are obvious. The relevant STD document could be used to quickly capture, not only the fact that a document had been changed in status, but the date on which that occurred and any useful information about the reason why it was done -- using a much lighter-weight process than RFC publication. However, this proposal is not tied to those in any way. ]] While RFCs are permanent, STD documents are expected to evolve and incorporate changes over time. However, they are also expected to include explicit change histories in order to make it possible for a reader to examine a current STD document and determine the status of the relevant standard at any particular previous time. And STD number, once bound to a particular conceptual standard, is never reused for a different concept. 4. Content and Organization of an STD Document [[Note in draft: this section still needs a good deal of work, but it is probably better to see if agreement can be reached on the principles here before too much time is spent on details.]] An STD document is expected to follow the general layout and formatting conventions of an RFC (because the community is familiar with them). The components listed below may appear, or are expected to appear (required materials, even if only pro-forma, are identified with asterisks). As with RFCs, additional sections may be included as needed and appropriate. Note that STDs don't have authors: the RFCs have authors, but the "author" of an STD would always be "IETF" (or the historical "Network Working Group") so there is no Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 information in providing a name. A individual who had made a major contribution to the STD document itself might be listed in an Acknowledgement or as a Contributor. Title.* It would be good for standards to have titles. As others have pointed out, it would make them, especially those that involve multiple RFCs, a lot easier to talk about. Date.* This is the data the STD was last updated. Everything else belongs in history or annotation. Abstract.* As with the title, it would be good to have these for standards, describing what the whole package does and not just what individual RFCs do. Maturity Level.* This is the maturity level for the STD as a whole. Presumably it is the lowest maturity level of any of the associated RFCs but, especially when one of the RFCs is intended to replace an earlier, more mature one, and text is supplied below that describes the situation, the IESG might decide to have it reflect the maturity level associate with the least mature document needed to form a full description of the standard. Additional comments may be associated with this section; it need not be just a label. If an STD is retired in its entirety, no matter what maximum maturity level it reached earlier, this entry may be "Historic" with optional descriptive text. RFC list.* For each RFC that is currently associated with this STD, the name, title, document date, and maturity level most recently assigned and its date. Optionally, an abbreviated abstract, applicability comments, errata, and other notes and commentary can be associated with some or all of the RFCs. When there is a non-obvious relationship among the various documents, it should be described either here or in the applicability remarks below, as appropriate (or in a separate section, if one is required). Applicability Remarks about the standard. Security Remarks about the standard. History*. This section should define the entire record of changes to the definition of the documents and applicability statements that make up the standard, with dates identified. It should, in particular, identify the point at which one document superceded or updated another. 5. Transition Obviously, there are many STD numbers assigned today that are not associated with documents as described here. If this process is not bootstrapped with those numbers, it probably won't work. So the following approach, which can be applied more less mechanically, is suggested: Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 o For each existing STD number, create a prototype STD document. This step and the following one can be done from the existing std-index being maintained by the RFC Editor. o Populate that document with the list of RFCs now associated with the STD and identify all of them as Internet Standards. o Populate the title and abstract with the title and abstract of the first RFC in the series. This won't be perfect, and in some cases, won't be even close, but it is better than nothing (and _much_ better than getting stuck waiting for someone to interpret the RFCs and do a write-up. o Omit any applicability, errata, or similar sections. o Populate the History section with a note to the effect that the Standard existed before the relevant date and the document is initialized as of that date. 6. Operational Issues There is a case to be made that creating this sort of document series is additional work for the IESG. In practice, this author doesn't believe it, at least to any significant degree. All of the relevant information is created today. It is scattered in meeting minutes and secretariat notes, protocol action notices, discussions about whether to restart WGs to deal with problems, etc. Today that information, much of it quite useful, gets lost or at least becomes quite difficult to find. Conversely, these series should reduce workload by considerably reducing the pressure to find editors to write or rewrite RFCs whose purpose is ultimately "this document is just like RFC xxxx, except that section 3.1.3 is removed to permit promoting the specification to the next maturity level. The IESG can certainly still insist on that procedure if it deems it necessary, but it should also be possible to Last Call a revised STD document that contains more or less that sentence and not touch the RFC at all. And, if a WG responsible for creating or updating an STD document can't come up with an appropriate title and abstract/brief description, we are in a kind of trouble that goes well beyond any procedural issues. This document carefully does not specify the registry mechanism for assigning new STD numbers, nor the publication and repository mechanism for the documents. Either or both might sensibly be done by the RFC Editor (that arrangement would certainly be consistent with historical precedents), but, if only because the STD series in this form would be a new task for them, it seems wise to leave this question to the IETF administrative process to sort out as seems appropriate in the broad administrative context. Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 7. References to STDs or References to RFCs Before this proposal was generated, vendors who wished to specify what they support, and potential customers who wished to specify what they wanted to purchase, had a choice between referencing specific RFCs (to get precision) or, for full standards, a specific STD number (to get "the most current version"). Except for providing an "STD" mechanism for referencing documents other than full Internet Standards, this proposal does not change either of those options: both are still free to use the existing forms. In the rare case in which a vendor is deliberately attempting to confuse its potential customers, this mechanism is not likely to help very much either. It does, however, provide a third option, which is to specify the state of an STD as of a particular date (even a date in the past or future) or within a particular date range. So, whatever the referencing issues are today, this certainly does not make them worse and almost certainly makes them better. 8. IANA Considerations This document does not anticipate any specific tasks for the IANA. However, over time, it may be desirable to review and update the descriptions of various registries to refer to STD numbers, rather than RFC numbers, as the definitions or authority for those registries. See also Section 6. 9. Security Considerations This document specifies an administrative procedure for the IETF and hence does not raise any new issues about the security of the Internet. However, the availability of the type of document described here may provide a convenient mechanism and repository of vulnerabilities and other issues that are discovered after RFCs are issued but that do not justify updating (or for which resources are not available to update) the relevant RFC. Having an obvious place to look for those notifications and discussions for standards-track documents might enhance overall security somewhat. 10. Acknowledgements The general ideas described here have been discussed on and off for several years, but have never been turned into a public documents. Thanks are due to several generations of IAB and IESG members and to RFC Editor staff for helping to clarify the ideas and to identify some variants that would or would not work. The ideas in this specific presentation are, of course, those of the author and are one with which some of the contributors might disagree. Pekka Savola provided extensive and very useful comments on a preliminary version Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 of the initial draft. 11. References 11.1 Normative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [WhatStandards] Loughney, J., "Standards, What Standards?", draft-loughney-what-standards-01 (work in progress), February 2004. 11.2 Informative References [NewtrkAntique] Klensin, J., "Valuable Antique Documents: A Model for Advancement", draft-klensin-newtrk-antiques-00 (work in progress), May 2004. [NewtrkHistoric] Alvestrand, H. and E. Lear, "Moving documents to Historic: A procedure", draft-alvestrand-newtrk-historical-00 (work in progress), March 2004. [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997. [rfc2223bis] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07 (work in progress), August 2003. Author's Address John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Phone: +1 617 491 5735 EMail: john-ietf@jck.com Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Repurposing the STD Designation June 2004 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 (2004). 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. Klensin Expires December 5, 2004 [Page 11]