Internet DRAFT - draft-lear-newtrk-decruft-experiment
draft-lear-newtrk-decruft-experiment
Network Working Group E. Lear
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems GmbH
Expires: January 13, 2006 H. Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
July 12, 2005
Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify obsolete standards
document"
draft-lear-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This memo documents an experiment to review and classify Proposed
Standards as not reflecting documented practice within the world
today. The results identify three classes of documents marked as
Proposed Standards that should be considered for retirement in some
way or another. We propose four options to move forward with further
work in this area ranging from doing nothing to accepting the results
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
entirely.
1. Introduction and history
RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified time lines 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.
2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure
From the Fall of 2004 through the Spring of 2005 the authors
conducted an experiment to determine how many Proposed Standards
could be considered obsolete. The experiment was operated as
follows:
o Identify with a group of documents that are standards.
o Assume by default that each document will be retired.
o Create a mailing list for discussion with a policy of open access.
o Allow any document to be removed from the list of those to be
retired for virtually any reason, so long as a reason is provided.
o Present the list to the working group, IETF, and IESG for review.
o Revise list based on comments.
o Write up results.
While the initial intent of the authors was to present a list of
documents to be reclassified as Historic, whether the actual
classification is Historic is left to the NEWTRK working group, the
IESG, and the IETF as a community. We will discuss this further
below.
3. Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations
We started with our initial document set being all RFCs with numbers
less than 2000 and a status of Proposed Standard. This includes 125
documents. The input we used, starting 25 Nov 2004 can be found in
the Appendix. There were some 125 documents in all.
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
A mailing list, old-standards@alvestrand.no, was created to discuss
and remove candidates from this list. A call for participation was
issued to the IETF-Announce list on or around the 15 Nov 2004. There
were 29 members of the mailing list. Approximately 244 messages were
sent to the list. People were encouraged to consider the question of
whether or not an implementor would either write a new implementation
or maintain an existing one.
After some months the list of documents to be considered was reduced
considerably. This list was then forwarded to the IETF discussion
list on 16 Dec 04 and to the NEWTRK working group list for wider
review.
Here are the results:
RFC1234 (Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks)
RFC1239 (Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs)
RFC1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
provide an Internet Directory using X.500)
RFC1285 (FDDI Management Information Base)
RFC1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet)
RFC1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading)
RFC1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF)
RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
RFC1381 (SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB)
RFC1382 (SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer)
RFC1397 (Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of
The Border Gateway Protocol)
RFC1414 (Identification MIB)
RFC1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification)
RFC1418 (SNMP over OSI)
RFC1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk)
RFC1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:
Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures)
RFC1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
II: Certificate-Based Key Management)
RFC1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers)
RFC1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
IV: Key Certification and Related Services)
RFC1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over
X.25)
RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
RFC1471 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control
Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1472 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security
Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
RFC1473 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing)
RFC1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
Version 1)
RFC1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message
Bodies)
RFC1496 (Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84)
when MIME content-types are present in the messages
RFC1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets)
RFC1512 (FDDI Management Information Base)
RFC1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring
MIB)
RFC1518 (An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR)
RFC1519 (Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy)
RFC1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing
Bridges)
RFC1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol
(IPXCP))
RFC1553 (Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX))
RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
RFC1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations)
RFC1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2)
RFC1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux))
RFC1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2)
RFC1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II)
RFC1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control
(SDLC) using SMIv2)
RFC1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2)
RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)
RFC1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP))
RFC1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP))
RFC1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5)
RFC1829 (The ESP DES-CBC Transform)
RFC1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ service)
RFC1848 (MIME Object Security Services)
RFC1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service)
RFC1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh)
4. Discussion
As one peruses this list one sees several classes of documents:
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
o Multiprotocol functions for protocols that are obsolete, such as
Appletalk or X.400.
o Protocols that were defined but not used, such as PEM or Whois++
o Functions that require at the very least updated applicability
statements, such as the ESP DES-CBC transform.
Of the set above it is clear that additional process for the later
one is unnecessary, since a document should be written one way or
another. It is the first two cases that are more interesting. In
either case a judgment is necessary as to whether or not a protocol
is both in use and likely to be supported. The parameters of our
experiment were sufficiently conservative to avoid cases where
protocols were likely to continue to be supported. That is, anyone
could remove a document from the list for any reason. In fact, in
some cases we may have been too conservative. Thus, It is also worth
considering the categories of documents that were removed from the
list:
o specifications known to be in full use that should be considered
for advancement
o specifications that are currently under review within the IETF
process
o Specifications that were previously considered for deprecation and
rejected.
The last category is exclusive to telnet options. Arguably such
options should be reconsidered for deprecation. Realistically nobody
is going to develop a new version of telnet that supports the TACACS
option, for instance. Nevertheless, as a first cut we were still
left with 61 documents that could be reclassified.
In at least one case discussion of deprecation has spurred work on
documents. For instance, there is a CIDR update in progress.
5. Next Steps
As we mention in the introduction, the current process requires
reconsideration of immature standards, and that this review currently
does not occur. This experiment has been an attempt at a procedure
that could ease that review. There are several potential next steps,
based on these results:
1. Accept the results of this experiment, issue a last call, and
deprecate standards that remain on the list past last call. This
is an aggressive approach that would preserve the intent of RFC
2026.
2. Do not accept the results of this experiment and update RFC 2026
to indicate a new practice.
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
3. Revise the procedure based on the results of this experiment,
based on feedback from the IESG. This option might take into
account the different types of old standards as described above.
4. Do nothing. This would leave the IETF and the IESG practice
inconsistent with documented practice.
It should be pointed out that we only looked at proposed standards
and only those RFCs with numbers less than 2000. Should either the
first or third of the above options be accepted, draft standards and
those older than several years should be considered.
Finally, should NEWTRK deliver a new document classification system,
these documents may provide a basis for one or more new categories of
that.
6. Security Considerations
Documents that have security problems may require special attention
and individual documents to indicate what concerns exist, and when or
in what ways an implementation can be deployed to alleviate concerns
concerns.
7. Acknowledgments
This experiment would have been completely useless without
participation of the members of the old-standards mailing list. Most
notably, Pekka Savalo, Bob Braden, and John Klensin were very active
contributors to the discussions.
8. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Authors' Addresses
Eliot Lear
Cisco Systems GmbH
Glatt-com
Glattzentrum, ZH CH-8301
Switzerland
Phone: +41 1 878 7525
Email: lear@cisco.com
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
Weidemanns vei 27
Trondheim 7043
NO
Email: harald@alvestrand.no
Appendix A. Input RFCs
RFC0698 (Telnet extended ASCII option)
RFC0726 (Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet option)
RFC0727 (Telnet logout option)
RFC0735 (Revised Telnet byte macro option)
RFC0736 (Telnet SUPDUP option)
RFC0749 (Telnet SUPDUP-Output option)
RFC0779 (Telnet send-location option)
RFC0885 (Telnet end of record option)
RFC0927 (TACACS user identification Telnet option)
RFC0933 (Output marking Telnet option)
RFC0946 (Telnet terminal location number option)
RFC0977 (Network News Transfer Protocol)
RFC1041 (Telnet 3270 regime option)
RFC1043 (Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS implementation)
RFC1053 (Telnet X.3 PAD option)
RFC1073 (Telnet window size option)
RFC1079 (Telnet terminal speed option)
RFC1091 (Telnet terminal-type option)
RFC1096 (Telnet X display location option)
RFC1144 (Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links)
RFC1195 (Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual)
RFC1234 (Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks)
RFC1239 (Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs)
RFC1256 (ICMP Router Discovery Messages)
RFC1269 (Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
Protocol: Version 3)
RFC1274 (The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema)
RFC1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
provide an Internet Directory using X.500)
RFC1277 (Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over Non-
OSI Lower Layers)
RFC1285 (FDDI Management Information Base)
RFC1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet)
RFC1323 (TCP Extensions for High Performance)
RFC1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading)
RFC1332 (The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP))
RFC1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF)
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
RFC1372 (Telnet Remote Flow Control Option)
RFC1377 (The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP))
RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
RFC1381 (SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB)
RFC1382 (SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer)
RFC1397 (Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of
The Border Gateway Protocol)
RFC1413 (Identification Protocol)
RFC1414 (Identification MIB)
RFC1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification)
RFC1418 (SNMP over OSI)
RFC1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk)
RFC1420 (SNMP over IPX)
RFC1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:
Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures)
RFC1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
II: Certificate-Based Key Management)
RFC1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers)
RFC1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
IV: Key Certification and Related Services)
RFC1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over
X.25)
RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
RFC1471 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control
Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1472 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security
Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1473 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
RFC1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing)
RFC1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
Version 1)
RFC1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message
Bodies)
RFC1496 (Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84)
RFC1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets)
RFC1510 (The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5))
RFC1512 (FDDI Management Information Base)
RFC1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring
MIB)
RFC1517 (Applicability Statement for the Implementation of
Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR))
RFC1518 (An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR)
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
RFC1519 (Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy)
RFC1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing
Bridges)
RFC1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol)
RFC1553 (Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX))
RFC1570 (PPP LCP Extensions)
RFC1572 (Telnet Environment Option)
RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
RFC1618 (PPP over ISDN)
RFC1628 (UPS Management Information Base)
RFC1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations)
RFC1663 (PPP Reliable Transmission)
RFC1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2)
RFC1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux))
RFC1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2)
RFC1697 (Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management)
RFC1731 (IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms)
RFC1734 (POP3 AUTHentication command)
RFC1738 (Uniform Resource Locators (URL))
RFC1740 (MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME)
RFC1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II)
RFC1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control)
RFC1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2)
RFC1752 (The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol)
RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)
RFC1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP))
RFC1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP))
RFC1767 (MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects)
RFC1793 (Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits)
RFC1808 (Relative Uniform Resource Locators)
RFC1812 (Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers)
RFC1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5)
RFC1829 (The ESP DES-CBC Transform)
RFC1831 (RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version
2)
RFC1833 (Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2)
RFC1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ service)
RFC1847 (Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
Multipart/Encrypted)
RFC1848 (MIME Object Security Services)
RFC1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service)
RFC1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh)
RFC1928 (SOCKS Protocol Version 5)
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
RFC1929 (Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5)
RFC1961 (GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5)
RFC1962 (The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP))
RFC1964 (The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism)
RFC1968 (The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP))
RFC1973 (PPP in Frame Relay)
RFC1982 (Serial Number Arithmetic)
RFC1985 (SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting)
RFC1995 (Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS)
RFC1996 (A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS
NOTIFY))
RFC1997 (BGP Communities Attribute)
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Cruft Experiment July 2005
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 (2005). 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.
Lear & Alvestrand Expires January 13, 2006 [Page 11]
