wdiff draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-01.txt draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-02.txt

Network Working Group S. Bradner
Internet-Draft Harvard University
Editor
January 1996
Expires in six months Editor
October 1995

The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3

a proposed revision of part of RFC 1602

<draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-01.txt>

<draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-02.txt>

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft. 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.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

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.

Table of Contents

Status of this Memo.................................................1
Abstract............................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................... INTRODUCTION....................................................3
1.1 Internet Standards............................................ Standards...........................................3
1.2 The Internet Standards Process................................ Process...............................3
1.3 Organization of This Document................................. Document................................5
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.......................... PUBLICATIONS.........................5
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................. (RFCs).................................5
2.2 Internet-Drafts...............................................
2.3 Notices and Record Keeping.................................... Internet-Drafts..............................................7
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................. SPECIFICATIONS................................8
3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................. (TS).................................8
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................. (AS).................................8
3.3 Requirement Levels............................................ Levels...........................................9
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK..................................... TRACK...................................10
4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels............................... Levels.............................10
4.1.1 Proposed Standard......................................... Standard.......................................10
4.1.2 Draft Standard............................................ Standard..........................................11
4.1.3 Internet Standard......................................... Standard.......................................12
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels........................... Levels.........................12
4.2.1 Experimental.............................................. Experimental............................................12
4.2.2 Informational............................................. Informational...........................................13
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs........ RFCs......13
4.2.4 Historic.................................................. Historic................................................14
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs...............................14
5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................15
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS...................................
5.1 PROCESS.................................15
6.1 Standards Actions.............................................
5.1.1 Actions...........................................16
6.1.1 Initiation of Action......................................
5.1.2 Action....................................16
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval..................................
5.1.3 Publication...............................................
5.2 Entering the Standards Track..................................
5.3 Approval................................16
6.1.3 Publication.............................................17
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track..............................
5.4 Track............................17
6.3 Revising a Standard...........................................
5.5 Standard.........................................19
6.4 Retiring a Standard...........................................
5.6 Standard.........................................19
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals...............................
6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs.................................
6.1 BCP Review Process............................................ Appeals.............................19
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS............................
8. SPECIFICATIONS..........................21
7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................21
7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................22
7.1.2 Incorporation of a Vendor Standard......................22
7.1.3 Assumption..............................................22
8 NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................22
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.....................................
8.1. RIGHTS...................................23
9.1. General Policy...............................................
8.2 Policy.............................................23
9.2 Confidentiality Obligations..................................
8.3. Obligations................................23
9.3. Rights and Permissions.......................................
8.3.1. Permissions.....................................24
9.3.1. All Contributions.........................................
8.4.2. Contributions.......................................24
9.4.2. Standards Track Documents.................................
8.4.3 Documents...............................24
9.4.3 Determination of Reasonable and
Non-discriminatory Terms..................................
8.5. Notices......................................................

9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................. Terms................................25
9.5. Notices....................................................25
10. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................27
11. REFERENCES.......................................................
12 SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................27
12. REFERENCES.....................................................27
13 .AUTHORS' ADDRESS................................................. ADDRESS...............................................28

APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...................................28
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS..................................... ACRONYMS...................................28

1. INTRODUCTION

This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet
community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The
Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
Steering Group. Group (IESG).

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 internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which are
not connected to the global Internet but use the Internet Standards.

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 may apply only normally applies to the application of the protocol
or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the
protocol itself.

In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.

1.2 The Internet Standards Process
In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development
and several iterations of review by the Internet community and
revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the
appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the
process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating
specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider
the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of
establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty
of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the
Internet community.

The goals of the Internet standards process are:
o technical excellence;
o prior implementation and testing;
o clear, short, concise, and easily understandable documentation;
o openness and fairness; and
o timeliness.

The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to
be flexible.

o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and
objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet
Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and
comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the
standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed
and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic
mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide
on-line directories.

o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification
must be implemented and tested for correct operation and
interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in
increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as
an Internet Standard.

o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to
the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the
standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to
be vital in achieving the goals listed above.

The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior
implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested
parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the
other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology
demands timely development of standards. The Internet standards
process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
or openness and fairness.

From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain,
an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users
of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and
services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution
as a major tenet of Internet philosophy.

The procedures described in this document are the result of a number
of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.

1.3 Organization of This Document

Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet
standards process, and specifies the requirements for record-keeping
and public access to information. Section 3 describes the Internet
standards track. Section 4 describes the types of Internet standard
specification. Section 5 describes the process and rules for Internet
standardization. Section 6 specifies the way in which externally-
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled within the Internet
standards process. Section 7 presents the rules that are required to
protect intellectual property rights in the context of the
development and use of Internet Standards. Section 8 contains a list
of numbered references.

Appendix A contains definitions of some of the terms used in this
document. Appendix B contains a list of frequently-used acronyms.

2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS

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.

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,
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.

The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available
in PostScript(R). The PostScript(R) version of an RFC may contain
material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the
ASCII version, and it may be formatted differently.

*********************************************************
* *
* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *
* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *
* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *
* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *
* *
*********************************************************

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).

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)

Some RFCs describe Best Current Practices for the best current thinking about practices in the
Internet community These RFCs form the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice)
subseries of the RFC series. [7] When a specification has been
adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it
keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series. (see section 5)

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 Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).

********************************************************
* *
* It is important to remember that not all RFCs *
* are standards track documents, and that not all *
* standards track documents reach the level of *
* Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs *
* which describe current practices have been given *
* the review and approval to become BCPs. See *
* RFC-1796 for further information. *
* *
********************************************************

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. At any time, an
Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same
specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.

An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
subject to change or removal at any time.

********************************************************
* *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. *
* *
********************************************************

Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft.
This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long
as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
the "Work in Progress".

2.3 Notices and Record Keeping

Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to
the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part
of the Internet standards process. For purposes of this section, the
organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet
Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF working
groups, and the Internet Society board of trustees.

For IETF and working group meetings announcements shall be made by
electronic mail to the IETF mailing list and shall be made
sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested
parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain
(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to
support the participation of any interested individual. In the case
of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda
that specifies the standards-related issues that will be discussed.

The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity
shall include at least the following:

o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent
to a charter);
o complete and accurate minutes of meetings;
o the archives of the working group electronic mail mailing lists;
and
o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from
participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related
activity.

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 Executive Director of the IETF. Each IETF
working group is expeceted 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. The entire record is available to any
interested party upon request to the Executive Director. Internet
drafts that have been removed (for any reason) from the internet-
drafts directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the
sole purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
circumstances.

3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

Specifications subject to the Internet standards process fall into
one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and
Applicability Statement (AS).

3.1 Technical Specification (TS)

A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of
the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more
parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self-
contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications
by reference to other documents (which may or may not be Internet
Standards).

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.

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 6. 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.

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.

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 5.1). 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.

An AS may refer to a TS that is either a standards-track
specification or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity
level of "Experimental" or "Historic" (see section 4.2).

3.3 Requirement Levels

An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each
of the TSs to which it refers:

(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by
the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example,
IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the
TCP/IP Protocol Suite.

(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not
required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally
accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain
of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to
include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs
in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is
justified by some special circumstance.

(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.

As noted in section 3.2, 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the
standards track or that have been retired from the standards
track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.
Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for
these TSs:

(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use
only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage
of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally
be limited to those actively involved with the experiment.

(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate
for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because
of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic
status.

Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed
specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of
applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a
single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In
such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately
distributing the information among several documents just to preserve
the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply
to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a
modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.

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.

4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK

Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and
"Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in
which specifications move along the standards track is described in
section 5. 6.

Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard,
further evolution often occurs based on experience and the
recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of
Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet
Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to
indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of
maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other
specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.

4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels

Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing,
and acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages
are formally labeled "maturity levels".

This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
characteristics of specifications at each level.

4.1.1 Proposed Standard

The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
level (see section 5).
level.

A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
before it advances.

Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation.

The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet. Typically, such a specification will be published
initially with Experimental status (see section 4.2.1), and moved to
the standards track only after sufficient implementation or
operational experience has been obtained.

A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may
waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance
to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.

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
customer base is not recommended.

4.1.2 Draft Standard

A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases, bases have been developed, and
for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. If patented
or otherwise controlled technology is required for implementation,
the separate implementations must also have resulted from separate
exercise of the licensing process. This 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. 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.

A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or
more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate
unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production
environments.

A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification,
and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems
encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to
deploy implementations of draft standards Draft Standards into the customer base.

4.1.3 Internet Standard

A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.

A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.

4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

Not every TS or AS specification is on the standards track. A TS specification
may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended
for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
track. A TS or AS specification may have been superseded by a more recent
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.

Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". There are no time limits associated
with these non-standards track labels, and the The documents bearing these labels
are not Internet Standards in any sense.

4.2.1 Experimental
The "Experimental" designation on a TS typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF working group, Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.

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 below). section 4.2.3).

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 6 9 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.

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 . Editor. 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
the filename
they will include "-rfced-". 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.

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, to work being done, or of interest to, 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.

If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.

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 5.1.1. 6.1.1.

4.2.4 Historic

A TS or AS 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.)

5. BEST CURRENT THINKING ABOUT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the communities' best current
thinking on a statement of principle or on what is the best way to
perform some function.

Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
service requires that the operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
for consensus building.

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.

Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the
IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF standards
process and is published as a BCP.

5.1 BCP Review Process

Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs
are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage
standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and
immediate instantiation.

The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP
is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the
existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF
Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the
document, the process ends and the document is published. The
resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the
IETF, but it is not, and cannot become an official Internet Standard.

Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must
undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.5 of this
document. It is also under the restrictions of section 6.2 and the
process may be appealed according to the procedures in section 6.6.

Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived
at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.
Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger
Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable
for a content unique from Informational RFCs.

A specification that has been approved as a BCP is assigned a number
in the BCP series while retaining its RFC number.

6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

The mechanics of the Internet standards process involve decisions of
the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the
standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification
from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably
objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available
to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,
along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee
of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any
specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG
concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for
elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential
component of the decision-making process.

5.1

6.1 Standards Actions

A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
be approved by the IESG.

5.1.1

6.1.1 Initiation of Action

A standards action is initiated by a recommendation to the
appropriate IETF Area Director or to the IESG as a whole by the
individual or group that is responsible for the specification
(usually an IETF Working Group).

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), by sending the document in 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an electronic mail message
to the Internet-Drafts address at the IETF Secretariat. 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 it a
recommendation for action may be
submitted to the the relevant Area Director for review initiated.

A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by sending an
electronic mail message to the Area Director with IETF
Working group responsible for a copy specification to the IESG
Secretary, specifying the name of the document and the recommended
action. The its Area Director, after reviewing
copied to the submission, may
request that IETF Secretary or, in the IESG consider case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
the document for action.

5.1.2 IESG.

6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval

The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it according to section 5.1.1 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see sections 5.3 4.1 and 5.4), 4.2), and shall in
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
of the specification comports is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended.

In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these
determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by
the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact
on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,
at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the
specification. Such a review shall be commissioned whenever the
circumstances surrounding a recommended standards action are
considered by the IESG to require a broader basis than is normally
available from the IESG itself for agreement within the Internet
community that the specification is ready for advancement. The IESG
shall communicate the findings of any such review to the IETF.

The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG
consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the
general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be
via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a Last-
Call
Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent to the
email address specified in the Last-Call.

In a timely fashion, but

The Last-Call period shall be no sooner shorter than two weeks after issuing except in
those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by
an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call notification period shall be no
shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community
interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may
decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a
current Last-Call period.

The IETF may decide to recommend the formation of a new Working Group
in the case of significant controversy in response to a specification
not originating from an IETF mailing list, Working Group.

In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. In those cases in which the IESG believes
that the community interest would be served by allowing more time for
comment, it may decide to explicitly lengthen the Last-Call period.
In those cases in which the proposed

6.1.3 Publication

If a standards action involves a
document for which no corresponding IETF working group is currently
active, the Last-Call period shall be no shorter than four weeks.

5.1.3 Publication

Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, approved, notification is sent to the RFC
Editor shall 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.

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. In addition, the IESG shall publish a monthly summary of
standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Monthly
Report.

Finally, the

The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
protocol and service specifications, both within and outside
the standards track.

5.2 Entering the Standards Track

A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may
originate from:

(a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),

(b) independent activity by individuals, or

Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that enter
the standards track. In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly
integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it
might be offered for standardization without prior IETF involvement.
In most cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took
place outside of an IETF Working Group will be submitted to an
appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement. If
necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created.

For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated with
existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to afford
adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability of the
specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all technical
and usage questions, additional independent review may be necessary.
Such reviews may be done within a Working Group context, or by an ad
hoc review committee established specifically for that purpose. Ad
hoc review committees may also be convened in other circumstances
when the nature of review required is too small to require the
formality of Working Group creation. It is the responsibility of the
appropriate IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of
an external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted.

5.3 specifications.

6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track

The procedure described in section 5.1 6.1 is followed for each action
that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards
track.

A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
least six (6) months.

A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least
four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred,
whichever comes later.

These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for
community review without severely impacting timeliness. These
intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the
corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the
action.

A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall
determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant
revision may require that the specification accumulate more
experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally,
if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG
may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re-
entering the standards track at the beginning.

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.

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, 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.

5.4

6.3 Revising a Standard

A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
completely new specification. (Sections 5.1 and 5.3) Once the new version has reached the
Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which
will move be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both
versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements
of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between
the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the
text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an
Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).

5.5

6.4 Retiring a Standard

As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new
Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one
or more existing Internet Standards standards track specifications for the same function
should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other
reason that an existing standards track specification should be
retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the superseded old
specification(s) from Standard to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued
with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any
other standards action.

5.6 A request to retire an existing standard can
originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other
interested party.

6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals

IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which
sometimes requires difficult compromises between or among different
technical proposals. However, there are times when even the most
reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve
the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved
by a process of open review and discussion. This section specifies
the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Internet standards
issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes whereby
IETF Working Groups and other Internet standards process participants
ordinarily reach consensus.

An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or
not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or
her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group
has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality
and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group
process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two
types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by
the same process of review.

A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
Group as a whole) in the discussion.

If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the
parties involved may bring it shall be brought to the attention of the Area
Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.
The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.

If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
the matter parties involved may be brought before then appeal to the IESG as a whole. In
all cases a decision concerning the disposition of The
IESG shall then review the dispute, situation and
the communication of that decision attempt to the parties involved, must be
accomplished within resolve it in a reasonable period
manner of time.

A person who disagrees with an IESG decision should first discuss the
matter with the IESG chair, who may involve other members of the
IESG, or the whole IESG, in the discussion. its own choosing.

If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the
decision to the IAB by sending notice of such appeal to the IAB
electronic mail list. The IAB's review of the dispute shall be
informed by the findings of the IESG, by any additional
representation that the original petitioner(s) or others wish to make
in response to the IESG's findings, and by its own investigation of
the circumstances and the claims made by all parties. IAB. The IAB shall
make and announce its decision within a reasonable period of time.

[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not
establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered
"reasonable" in all cases. The Internet standards process places a
premium on consensus then review the situation and efforts
attempt to achieve it, and deliberately
foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures resolve it in favor of a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be
reached.] manner of its own choosing.

The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with
respect to all questions of technical merit.

Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet standards process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees, by formal notice to the ISOC electronic mail list.
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
Trustees' review of the
appeal (which shall be completed within a reasonable period of time). appeal. The Trustees' decision upon
completion of their review shall be final with respect to all aspects
of the dispute.

All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
facts of the dispute.

At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies
responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define
the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making
their decision.

6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

Internet standards have generally been concerned with

In all cases a decision concerning the technical
specifications for hardware disposition of the dispute,
and software required for computer the communication across interconnected networks. The Internet itself is
composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations,
with diverse goals and rules. However, good user service requires that decision to the operators and administrators parties involved, must
be accomplished within a reasonable period of the Internet follow some
common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines
are generally different in scope time.

[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and style from protocol standards,
their establishment needs explicitly do not
establish a similar process for consensus building.

6.1 BCP Review Process

The BCP process is similar to fixed maximum time period that for proposed standards. shall be considered
"reasonable" in all cases. The BCP
is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing review Internet standards process
applies, including places a Last-Call
premium on the IETF announcement mailing list.

However, once the IESG has approved the document, the process ends
and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed as
having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, consensus and cannot
become an official Internet Standard.

Specifically, a document efforts to be considered for the status achieve it, and deliberately
foregoes deterministically swift execution of BCP must
undergo the procedures outlined in sections 5.1, and 5.5 of this
document. It is also under the restrictions favor of section 5.2 and the
process
a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be appealed according to the procedures in section 5.6.
reached.]

7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish
standards documents for network protocols and services. When these
external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is
desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to
establish Internet Standards relating to these external
specifications.

There are two categories of external specifications:

(1) Open Standards

Accredited

Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI,
ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service
specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications
defined here. National and international groups also publish
"implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability
Statements, capturing a body of implementation-
specific implementation-specific detail
concerned with the practical application of their standards. All
of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the
purposes of the Internet standards process.

(2) Vendor Specifications

A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely used
in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if it
were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally
developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is
controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.

7.1 Use of External Specifications

To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS specification that is
simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification
unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.
However, there are several ways in which an external specification
that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet
may be adopted for Internet use.

(a)

7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard

An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII"
[2]. The reference must be to a specific version of the external
standard, e.g., by publication date or by edition number,
according to the prevailing convention of the organization that is
responsible for the specification. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
available online.

(b)

7.1.2 Incorporation of a Vendor Specification

Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference
to a specific version of the vendor standard. standard as long as the
proprietor meets the requirements of section 8. If the vendor-
proprietary specification is not widely and readily available, the
IESG may request that it be published as an Informational RFC.

For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within
the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the
requirements of section 8, and the specification shall be made
available online.

The IESG shall generally should not favor a particular vendor's
proprietary specification over the technically equivalent and
competing specification(s) of other vendors by making any
incorporated vendor specification "required" or "recommended".

(c)

7.1.3 Assumption

An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and
develop it into an Internet TS or AS. specification. This is acceptable only if
(1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in
compliance with the requirements of section 8, 9, and (2) change
control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the
specification for the specification or for specifications derived
from the original specification. Sample text illustrating

8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING

Each of the way organizations involved in which the development and approval
of Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain
a vendor
might convey change control publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it
engages, to the extent that the activity represents the
prosecution of any part of the Internet standards process. For
purposes of this section, the organizations involved in the
development and approval of Internet Standards includes the IETF,
the IESG, the IAB, all IETF working groups, and the Internet
Society Board of Trustees.

For IETF and working group meetings announcements shall be made by
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be
made sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all
interested parties to effectively participate. The announcement
shall contain (or provide pointers to) all of the information that
is contained necessary to support the participation of any interested
individual. In the case of a meeting, for example, the
announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards-
related issues that will be discussed.

The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity
shall include at least the following:

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 IESG Secretary 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 [10].

8. the archives. Internet drafts that have been removed
(for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts directories shall be
archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole purpose of preserving
an historical record of Internet standards activity and thus are not
retrievable except in special circumstances.

9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

8.1.

9.1. General Policy

In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.

8.2

9.2 Confidentiality Obligations
No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality
or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part
of the Internet standards process, and there must be no assumption of
any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.

8.3.

9.3. Rights and Permissions

In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the
dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand
any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions.

8.3.1.

9.3.1. All Contributions

By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
on his own behalf and/or on behalf of the organization he represents.
Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the
contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual
submitter(s)represent that each other named contributor was made
aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his
own behalf and/or on behalf of any organization he represents. may represent.

l. Contributor grants a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
world-wide right and license to the ISOC under Contrributor's Contributor's
copyrights to publish and distribute in any way the contribution,
and to develop derivative works that are based on or incorporate
all or part of the contribution, and that such derivative works
will inherit the right and license of the original contribution.

2. The contributor acknowledges that the IETF has no duty to publish
or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution.

3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and
address(s) of the contributor.

4. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the
contributor's ability to make the grants and acknowledgments above
that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor.

8.3.2. Standards Track Documents

(A)

5. The IESG shall not approve any TS, or advance contributor represents that contributions and any TS along derivative
works properly acknowledge major contributors.

By ratifying this description of the
standards track IETF process the Internet
Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and
free access to IETF documents for which can license and right have
been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this
section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is
perpetual and will not be practiced only revoked by using technology
that is subject to known patents the Internet Society or its
successors or assigns.

9.3.2. Standards Track Documents

(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights, except
rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on
the prior written assurance standards track, and brought to the attention of the
claimer IESG, the
IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the
document a note indicating the existence of such rights rights, or
claimed rights. Where implementations are required before
advancement of a specification, only implementations that upon approval have, by the IESG
statement of the
relevant Internet standards track TS(s), implementers, taken adequate steps to comply with
any party will such rights, or claimed rights, shall be able to
obtain considered for the right to implement and use
purpose of showing the technology or works
under specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. adequacy of the specification.
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed
copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the
fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no
position on the validity or scope of any such rights.

8.3.3
(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the
IESG Secretary shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such
rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG of the
relevant Interment standards track specification(s), any party
will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute
the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing
technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly
specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working
group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which
the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IESG Secretary
in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect
advancement of a specification along the standards track, though
the IESG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the
obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be
recorded by the IESG Secretary, and made available online. The
IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in
any RFC published containing the specification.

9.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms

The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a
technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the
normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to
verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated
implementations of the standard that are required to advance from
Proposed to Draft have been produced by different organizations or
individuals or if the "significant implementation and successful
operational experience" required to advance from Draft to full
Standard has been achieved the assumption is that the terms must be
reasonable and to some degree, non-discriminatory. This assumption
may be challenged during the Last-Call period.

8.4.

9.4. Notices

(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice:

"The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any
claimed encumbrances rights to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document, nor that it has made any effort to
identify any such intellectual property rights. For
further information Information on
the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards and
standards-related documentation, see
RFC-1602bis, documentation can be found in BCP-xxx, dated
in the future. Copies of all claims of
intellectual properly rights submitted to the IETF made available for posting
publication and copies of all statements of the ability result of an attempt made to obtain a
general license or permission for the right
to implement and use the technology under reasonable, non-
discriminatory terms that have been received of such proprietary
rights by the IETF
referring to implementors or users of this technology may specification can be
found in the "rights"
subdirectory in online at a location, or locations, nominated from time
to time by the RFC archives." IESG Secretary."

(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any
intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards.
For this purpose, each standards document shall include the
following invitation:

"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or
other proprietary rights which purport to may cover technology that may be
required to practice this standard. Please address the
information to the Executive Director of the Internet
Engineering Task Force Secretariat." IESG Secretary"

The permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

The document is may not be modified in any way, such as by
removing this copyright notice or references to The Internet
Society or other Internet
organizations.

The document may be modified organizations except as needed for
the purpose of developing Internet standards provided this notice is (1)
included in which case the modified document without change and (2) the
person or organization making the modifications clearly
identifies, within the modified document, the changes that have
been made and who made them.

The permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. Standards
process must be followed.

This document and the information contained herein is provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
ANY WARRANTY OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

9. PURPOSE."

(D) Where the IESG is aware of proprietary rights claimed with
respect to a standards track document, or the technology described
or referenced therein, such document shall contain the following
notice:

"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained
in this document. For more information consult the online list
of claimed rights."

10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There have been a number of people involved with the development of
the documents defining the IETF standards process over the years.
The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602
before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).
Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill
Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,
to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions,
and to Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert and Dick Holleman for
their reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described
herein.

In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of
the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various
incarnations of the POISED working group.

10.

11. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

12. REFERENCES

[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994. November 1995.

[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.

[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992. October 1994.

[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.

[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.

ti 3

[6] Postel, J., T. Li, and Y. Rekhter "Best Current Practices, RFC
1818, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Cisco Systems, August
1995.

[7] foo, "Standard Form for Conveyance of Change Control to the
Internet Society", RFC xxxx.

12 ..AUTHORS'

13 AUTHORS' ADDRESS

Scott O. Bradner
Harvard University
Holyoke Center, Room 813
1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA +1 617 495 3864

sob@harvard.edu

APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS

IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists
of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An
Area is managed by one or two Area Directors.
Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors
along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG).
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to
transfer files in a TCP/IP network.
gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and
retrieve files in a TCP/IP network.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists
in the management of the IETF standards process.
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the
IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible
for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the
standards approval board for the IETF.
Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.

(see section 6.1.2)
online - Relating to information made available over the Internet.
When referenced in this document material is said to be online
when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using
standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or
the WWW.
Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a
specific specification, set of specifications or topic.

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ANSI: American National Standards Institute
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
AS: Applicability Statement
FTP: File Transfer Protocol
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ITU-TS:
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN
treaty organization; ITU-TS ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.
IAB: Internet Architecture Board
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
IP: Internet Protocol
IRSG Internet Research Steering Group
IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
ISOC: Internet Society
MIB: Management Information Base
OSI: Open Systems Interconnection
RFC: Request for Comments
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol
TS: Technical Specification
WWW: World Wide Web