New IETF Standards Track Discussion (newtrk)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional NEWTRK Web Page

Last Modified: 2005-05-19

Chair(s):

  • Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>

    General Area Director(s):

  • Brian Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

    General Area Advisor:

  • Brian Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
    To Subscribe: newtrk-request@lists.uoregon.edu
    Archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

    Description of Working Group:

    The problem working group found that many IETF participants feel that
    the current IETF hierarchy of Proposed, Draft and Full Standard
    maturity
    levels for specifications is no longer being used in the way that was
    envisioned when the stratification was originally proposed. In
    practice,
    the IETF currently has a one-step standards process. The goal of this
    working group is to agree on a revised IETF Standards Track, to replace
    the standards track described in RFC 2026. The working group will also
    decide on a process path forward.

    The disparity between the documented IETF standards process and what is
    used in practice can cause confusion on the part of those people or
    organizations that use IETF technologies. It has also led to a general
    disregard of the cautions in RFC 2026 on the appropriate deployment of
    IETF technologies described in Internet Drafts or Proposed Standard
    RFCs.

    The NewTrk working group is a follow on to the newtrk BOF held during
    the 58th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis. That BOF was held as a result of
    the work of the problem working group.

    The sense of the room at the end of the newtrk BOF was that:
    1/ some change was needed to the IETF Standards Track
    2/ a revised standards track should have more than one stage
    3/ there should be some form of "working group snapshot," this might
    or might not be a formal stage on the standards track and might or
    might
    not be an archival publication
    4/ at least one stage should require multiple interoperable
    implementations of the technology to ensure document clarity
    5/ any revised standards track should include some type of "IPR hook"
    to keep the IETF and IESG out of the business of determining what IPR
    claims are legitimate and what licensing terms are fair.

    The goal of this working group is to agree on a revised IETF Standards
    Track, taking into consideration the above points, to replace the
    standards track described in RFC 2026. The working group will also
    decide on a process for making forward progress. Some of the possible
    paths being producing a revised version of RFC 2026 (and maybe other
    RFCs), producing a standalone document or documents that update parts
    of
    the existing RFCs or a mixture of the two. There may be other
    possibilities.

    The working group should also take into account other issues raised by
    the problem working group and during the newtrk BOF as needed.

    The deliberations of the working group will cover at least the
    following
    topics:
    a/ the standards track itself (number of stages, movement between
    maturity levels, working group snapshots, maintenance, IPR issues)
    b/ access to the standards track for individual submissions
    c/ non-standards track document categories including BCP,
    Informational, Experimental, and Historic and their relationship to the
    standards track
    d/ usability of the standards track (bug fixes, version numbers,
    grouping multiple specifications, and maybe deprecation)
    e/ development of a primary marker to distinguish documents
    originating from the IETF from those not originating from the IETF

    Discussions in the working group since the NewTrk BOF have added two
    possible additional topics to the working group's agenda.

    As part of a revised standards track process, the group will also
    explore the creation of a new series of short IESG-approved IETF
    documents to describe and define IETF technology standards. These
    documents should be able to be used to define the IETF understanding of
    what constituted a specific IETF standard at particular points in time.
    The working group will also consider the usefulness of implementation
    and or interoperability registers in conjunction with such a document
    series.

    The working group will also discuss the usefulness of new "cleanup"
    procedures to reclassify existing standards track RFCs based on breadth
    of adoption (or lack of it) or the risk to the Internet of the
    technology described in the RFC.

    The NewTrk working group will coordinate its work with other reform
    activities currently underway in the IETF.

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  Publish ID describing new document series to describe and define individual IETF technology standards
    Done  Publish ID describing a new RFC cleanup process
    Done  Determine if there is consensus to proceed with defining a new RFC cleanup process
    Done  Determine if there is consensus to proceed with a new document series to describe and define individual IETF technology standards
    Apr 2005  If the consensus was to create a new document series to describe and define individual IETF technology standards, submit ID describing the series to IESG for publication as a BCP RFC
    Aug 2005  If the consensus was to create a new RFC cleanup process then submit an ID describing the process to IESG for publication as a BCP RFC
    Aug 2005  Publish initial Internet-Draft(s) describing a revised IETF standards track
    Dec 2005  Submit final Internet-Draft(s) describing a revised IETF standards track to IESG for publication as a BCP

    Internet-Drafts:

    Internet Standards Documentation (ISDs) (69599 bytes)
    Cleaning the Attic II: Promoting Marketplace-approved Standards (24631 bytes)
    Identifying Standards Track Documents (17055 bytes)

    Request For Comments:

    Getting rid of the cruft: Report from an experiment in identifying and reclassifying obsolete standards documents (RFC 4450) (23822 bytes)
    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.