| TOC |
|
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 28, 2008.
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.
1.
Introduction
2.
Overview of Suggested Changes
3.
Detailed Proposals for Change
4.
Security Considerations
5.
IANA Considerations
6.
Acknowledgements
7.
Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section]
8.
Informative References
Appendix A.
Editorial Corrections
§
Author's Address
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
BCP 9 [RFC2026] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.) 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.
| TOC |
Where a suggestion needs some explanatory rationale, this is included among the detailed changes.
Additionally, there are several proposals for smaller changes that are intended only for clarification and alignment with reality.
| TOC |
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---------
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.
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.)
"---------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 [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑editor] (Daigle, L., “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” March 2007.), [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑independent] (Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, “Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,” March 2007.).
RATIONALE: IETF Experimental or Informational RFCs are distinct from independent submissions to the RFC Editor, which are now processed under [RFC3932] (Alvestrand, H., “The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures,” October 2004.), 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'.
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---------
... 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---------"
QUESTION: Is this text useful?
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---------
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.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This editor would prefer a two-stage standards track. If IETF discussion goes that way, he will be delighted to make the appropriate changes.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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---------"
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the editor's preferred model of a two stage standards process, DS would be renamed as IS (Interoperable Standard) and would be the final stage.
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 the risk of confusion.
"---------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 to define the level of granularity required in interpreting this requirement, and how to show interoperability for specifications that do not define wire protocols or have a single-ended nature.
RATIONALE: At least four significant questions arise repeatedly in interpreting the rules. Rather than trying to over-define the rules, it seems best to leave this to the IESG.
"---------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 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.
-----------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 [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑editor] (Daigle, L., “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” March 2007.) and [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑independent] (Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, “Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,” March 2007.).
RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid 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 [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑independent] (Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, “Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,” March 2007.).
RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid inconsistency.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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 [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑independent] (Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, “Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,” March 2007.), [RFC3932] (Alvestrand, H., “The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures,” October 2004.).
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. 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] (Bush, R. and T. Narten, “Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level,” December 2004.), [RFC4897] (Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, “Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents,” June 2007.).
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] (Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, “Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents,” June 2007.) 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 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.
"---------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---------
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 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.
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.
| TOC |
This document has no security implications for the Internet.
| TOC |
This document requires no action by the IANA.
| TOC |
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.
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] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.).
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629] (Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” June 1999.).
| TOC |
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00: original version, extracted and modified from draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique, 2007-06-27
| TOC |
| TOC |
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---------
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 [I‑D.iab‑rfc‑editor] (Daigle, L., “The RFC Series and RFC Editor,” March 2007.) and [RFC4071] (Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, “Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA),” April 2005.).
"---------Begin Extract---------
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that [I‑D.rfc‑editor‑rfc2223bis] (Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, “Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors,” July 2004.) 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---------"
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"
"---------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] (Bradner, S., “IETF Rights in Contributions,” March 2005.) and BCP 79 [RFC3979] (Bradner, S., “Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology,” March 2005.). A simple reference should replace it.
| TOC |
| Brian Carpenter | |
| IBM | |
| 8 Chemin de Blandonnet | |
| 1214 Vernier, | |
| Switzerland | |
| Email: | brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © 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.
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.