Internet DRAFT - draft-alvestrand-newtrk-historical

draft-alvestrand-newtrk-historical



Network Working Group                                      H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft                                                   E. Lear
Updates: 2026 (if approved)                                Cisco Systems
Expires: September 24, 2004                               March 26, 2004



               Moving documents to Historic: A procedure
               draft-alvestrand-newtrk-historical-00.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.


   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 September 24, 2004.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.


Abstract


   This document describes a procedure for performing the downgrading of
   old Proposed and Draft standards described in RFC 2026 without
   placing an unreasonable load on groups charged with performing other
   tasks in the IETF.


   It defines a new group, called the "Commission for Protocol
   Obsolesence", which shall recommend to the IESG downgrading or
   progressing documents on the IETF standards track.  Ultimate
   decisions still rest of with the IESG, with appeal to the IAB.


1. Introduction and history





Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 2004



   RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified timelines for review of
   immature (draft or proposed) standards.  The purpose of such review
   was to determine whether such documents should be advanced, retired,
   or developed further.[1]


   This procedure has never been followed in the history of the IETF.
   Since this procedure has not been followed, members of the community
   have suggested that the retiring of a document to Historic is a
   significant event, which should be justified carefully - leading to
   the production of documents such as RFC 2556 (OSI connectionless
   transport services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic
   Status) and RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1433 to Historic Status).


   Such documents require significant time and effort on the part of
   authors, area directors, and the RFC Editor.  Indeed such effort
   should be reserved for advancing or maintaining immature standards.
   Hence, no document should be required for an immature standard to be
   retired to Historic status.


2. New Decommissioning Procedure


   The decommissioning procedure for standards has the following steps:


   o  The Commission determines that a set of documents is eligible for
      reclassification as Historic according to RFC 2026. It's up to the
      Commission to decide which documents to tackle next.


   o  The Commission attempts to find out whether there are mailing
      lists or contactable individuals relevant to the technology
      described in the documents.


   o  For each standard in question, the Commission sends out a message
      to the IETF list and the lists deemed relevant, asking for
      implementation experience and active usage.


   o  If there are reports of implementation experience and/or active
      usage, the RFC is moved into the Commission's Individual
      Decommissioning Procedure.


   o  The Commission sends to the IESG the remaining list of documents
      it recommends be reclassified as Historic along with a record of
      steps taken to identify that standard's use.  That record should
      include pointers to archives, as well as a log of actions taken to
      seek out usage.


   o  The IESG will respond to the Commission's recommendation with a
      message to the IETF Announce list.  If it agrees to the change in
      status, the standard is marked Historic.  It may also request more




Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 2004



      information from the Commission or outright disagree.



3. Individual Decommissioning Procedure


   This procedure is intended for use when one needs to consider
   evidence before deciding what to do with a document.


   Because of the time that has passed without applying the 2026 rule,
   this document describes three alternatives, not two:


   o  Maintenance on the standards track (per 2026)


   o  Reclassification as Historic (per 2026)


   o  Reclassification as Informational.(XXX Do we require a new
      classification?)


   Maintenance on the standards track at this point demands attention
   from the IETF if a document is not full standard.  Such a document
   should either be advanced by the IESG, or a working group should be
   formed to address its shortcomings. The last alternative is intended
   for cases where the technology is in active use, perhaps in a small
   community, and it is clearly not reasonable to expect it to advance
   on the standards track. (XXX DRAFT NOTE: Cannot a small community
   continue to use a Historic standard, such as, oh, SNMPv1?)


3.1 Procedure


   The Commission takes input from all sources it cares to take input
   from. As it does so it will keep an archive and a record of all such
   input. Once it determines a recommended action, it sends a
   recommendation to the IESG along with a pointer to the record, and
   the IESG will announce this to the IETF community if it agrees with
   the recommendation.


3.2 Evaluation criteria


   The decision on when to ask for reclassification is made by the
   Commission.


   Criteria that should be considered are:


   o  Implementations. A spec that is unimplemented should go to
      Historic.


   o  Usage. A protocol or feature that is completely unused should go
      to Historic. A protocol or feature that is used, and found useful,




Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 2004



      but only in limited circumstances, should go Informational. XXX


   o  Potential for harm. A protocol or feature that has been shown to
      create opeational problems that clearly outstrip its benefits
      should go to Historic even if there is some usage of it. RFC 1137
      - "Mapping between full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with restricted
      encoding" - was reclassified for that reason.


   o  Interest in further work. If there is a reasonable expectation
      that the specification will be updated or advanced within a
      reasonable timeframe, the Commission should do nothing.



4. Selection of the Commission


   NOTE IN DRAFT: This is intended to be simple, and convey the idea
   that signing up for this is an 1-year stint, not a permanent
   position.


   The IESG will send out a call for volunteers for the Commission once
   a year, and will choose from the volunteers. A current member of the
   Commission may volunteer again if he/she wants to.


   The IESG will appoint as many members to the commission as it deems
   appropriate, along with a chair.  The chair will report every six
   months via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list on the
   Commission's progress.


   The Commission otherwise organizes its own work.


   The IESG may cut short the term of the commission and send out a new
   call for volunteers if it finds that reasonable.


Normative References


   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.



Authors' Addresses


   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
   Cisco Systems
   Weidemanns vei 27
   Trondheim  7043
   NO


   EMail: harald@alvestrand.no




Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 2004



   Eliot Lear
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US


   Phone: +1 408 527 4020
   EMail: lear@cisco.com












































Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 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




Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Moving To Historic                 March 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.












































Alvestrand & Lear      Expires September 24, 2004               [Page 7]