Network Working Group R. Bush Internet-Draft IIJ Updates: 2026 (if approved) T. Narten Expires: August 16, 2004 IBM Corporation April 8, 2004 Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level draft-ymbk-downref-02.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 3667. 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 August 16, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not have a normative reference to a document at a lower standards level. For example a standards track document may not have a normative reference to an informational RFC. There are needs for exceptions to this rule, often caused by the IETF using informational RFCs to describe non-IETF standards, or IETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This document clarifies the procedure used in these Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 1] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 circumstances. Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 2] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 1. Normative References Expected to be to Equal or Higher Level The Internet Standards Process [RFC2026] Section 4.2.4 specifies: 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. One intent is to avoid creating a perception that a standard is more mature than it actually is. 1.1 Definitions of Normative References Note: this section is adapted from the RFC Editor's definition of "normative" as given in [RFC2223bis]. Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general categories: "normative" and "informative". Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the subject matter in the new RFC, or whose contents are effectively part of the new RFC and whose omission would leave the new RFC incompletely specified. An informative reference is not normative; rather, it provides only additional information. For example, an informative reference might provide background or historical information, or provide an example of possible usage. Material in an informative reference is not required to be read in order to understand subject matter in the RFC. In the case of protocols, a reference is normative if it refers to packet formats or other protocol mechanisms that are needed to fully implement the protocol in the current specification. For example, if a protocol relies on IPsec to provide security, one cannot fully implement the protocol without the specification for IPsec also being available; hence, the reference would be normative. In the case of MIB documents, an IMPORTS clause by definition is a normative reference. 2. The Need for Downward References There are a number of circumstances where a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity level may be needed. o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or profiled by an IETF informational RFC, for example MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104]. Note that this does not override the IETF's duty to see that the specification is indeed sufficiently clear to enable creation of interoperable implementations. Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 3] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 o A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol, and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using informational RFCs. o A migration or co-existence document may need to define a standards track mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence with, an historic protocol, a proprietary protocol, or possibly a non-standards track protocol. o There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons which force the target of the normative reference to be an informational or historical RFC, or for it to be at a lower standards level than the referring document. o A BCP document may want to describe best current practices for experimental or informational specifications. 3. The Procedure to be Used For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative reference to documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call procedure will be issued, with the need for the downward reference explicitly documented in the Last Call itself. Any community comments on the appropriateness of downward references will be considered by the IESG as part of its deliberations. Once a specific precedent has been set (i.e., the same exception has been made for a particular reference a few times), the need for an explicit mention of the issue during Last Call may be waived. This procedure should not be used when the appropriate step to take is to move the document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate category. I.e., this is not intended as an easy way out of normal process. Rather, it is intended for dealing with specific cases where putting particular documents into the required category is problematical and unlikely to ever happen. 4. BCPs and Experimental Protocols Best Current Practice documents have generally been considered similar to Standards Track documents in terms of what they can reference. For example, a normative reference to an Experimental RFC has been considered an improper reference per [2026]. Recently, the mboned Working Group wanted to publish BCPs on multicast issues. But many of the protocols are Experimental and are not expected to be moved onto the Standards Track (e.g., [RFC2362]). Thus, the Experimental protocols represent what is being used, and it is useful to publish BCP documents that refer to them. This document explicitely allows BCP documents to contain normative references to non-Standards Track documents. Also, it should be noted that the current practice has been that BCPs can reference Proposed Standards, and because BCPs have no concept of "advancing in grade", there are Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 4] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 no down-reference issues when a BCP refers to a document on the Standards Track. 5. Security Considerations This document is not known to create any new vulnerabilities for the internet. On the other hand, inappropriate or excessive use of the process might be considered a down-grade attack on the quality of IETF standards, or worse, on the rigorous review of security aspects of standards. 6. Acknowledgments This document is the result of discussion within the IESG, with particular contribution by Harald Alvestrand, Steve Bellovin, Scott Bradner, Ned Freed, Jeff Schiller, and Bert Wijnen. Normative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Informative References Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 5] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 [2223bis] "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt. [RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April 1992. [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [RFC2362] Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification. D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S. Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma, L. Wei. June 1998. Authors' Addresses Randy Bush IIJ 5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 US Phone: +1 206 780 0431 EMail: randy@psg.com URI: http://psg.com/~randy/ Thomas Narten IBM Corporation P.O. Box 12195 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 US Phone: +1 919 254 7798 EMail: narten@us.ibm.com Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 6] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 7] Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification April 2004 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Bush & Narten Expires October 8, 2004 FORMFEED[Page 8]