< draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01.txt		draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02.txt >
	Network Working Group O. Kolkman		Network Working Group O. Kolkman
	Internet-Draft NLnet Labs		Internet-Draft NLnet Labs
	Updates: 2026 (if approved) S. Bradner		Updates: 2026 (if approved) S. Bradner
	Intended status: Informational Harvard University		Intended status: Best Current Practice Harvard University
	Expires: March 15, 2014 S. Turner		Expires: March 19, 2014 S. Turner
	IECA, Inc.		IECA, Inc.
	September 13, 2013		September 17, 2013
	Characterization of Proposed Standards		Characterization of Proposed Standards
	draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01		draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document clarifies the description of the review performed on		RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
	and the maturity level of IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and updates RFC		Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This
	2026		document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by
			providing a new characterization Proposed Standards.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Characterization of Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		3. Characterization of Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 3		3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 3
	3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	Appendix B. Internet Draft Editing History . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions . . . 5
	Appendix B.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		Appendix B.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Appendix B.2. Version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix B.2. Version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix B.3. Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix B.3. Version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix B.4. Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[Editor Note: ietf@ietf.org is the mailing-list for discussing this		[Editor Note: ietf@ietf.org is the mailing-list for discussing this
	draft.]		draft.]
	In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026] the IESG		In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026] the IESG
	has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus		has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus
	RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed		RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed
	Standards.		Standards.
	This document updates the characterization of Proposed Standards from		This document exclusively updates the characterization of Proposed
	RFC2026 but does not speak to or alter the standard maintenance		Standards from RFC2026 Section 4.1.1 and does not speak to or alter
	procedures from RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410].		the procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from
			RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410]. For complete understanding of the
			requirements for standardization those documents should be read in
			conjunction with this document.
	2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards		2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards
	The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed		The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
	Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a		Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
	specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"		specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
	level.		level.
	Initially it was assumed that most IETF technical specifications		Initially it was assumed that most IETF technical specifications
	would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with		would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
	Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard then, finally,		Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard then, finally,
	to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a		to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a
	number of reasons, this progression became less common. In response,		number of reasons, this progression became less common. In response,
	the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically		the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically
	operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the		operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the
	IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the		IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
	standards document. The result was that IETF Proposed Standards		Standard Track document. The result was that IETF Proposed Standards
	approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.		approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.
	Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards		Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards
	should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from		should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from
	other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review		other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review
	is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area		is more extensive than that done in other SDOs owing to the cross-
	technical review performed by the IESG.		area technical review performed by the IESG, a position that is
			further strengthened by the common presence of interoperable running
			code and implementation before publication as a Proposed Standard.
	3. Characterization of Specification		3. Characterization of Specification
	Section 3.1 updates RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section 3.2 is a verbatim		Section 3.1 of this document replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section
	copy of the characterization of Internet Standards from RFC 2026		3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet Standards
	Section 4.1.3.		from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient reference.
	3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications		3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
	The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed		The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
	Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a		Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
	specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"		specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
	level.		level.
	A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known		A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
	design choices, is well-understood, has received significant		design choices, is well-understood, has received significant
	community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to		community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to
	be considered valuable. However, as with all technical standards,		be considered valuable.
	further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the
	specification in the future.
	Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is		Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
	required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed		required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
	Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will		Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
	usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard		usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
	designation.		designation.
	The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience		The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
	prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that		prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
	materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies		materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
	skipping to change at page 4, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶
	A specification for which significant implementation and successful		A specification for which significant implementation and successful
	operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the		operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
	Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be		Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
	referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of		referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
	technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified		technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
	protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet		protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
	community.		community.
	4. Further Considerations		4. Further Considerations
	While commonly less mature specifications will be published as
	Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional		While less mature specifications will usually be published as
	cases, publish a specification that does not match the		Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, on occasion,
	characterizations above as a Proposed Standard. In those cases that		publish a specification that still contains areas for improvement or
	fact will be clearly communicated on the front page of the RFC e.g.		certain uncertainties about whether the best engineering choices are
	means of an IESG statement.		made. In those cases that fact will be clearly and prominently
			communicated in the document e.g. in the abstract, the introduction,
			or a separate section or statement.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.		This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	There are no actions for IANA.		There are no actions for IANA.
	7. References		7. References
	skipping to change at page 4, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 53 ¶
	[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision		[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
	3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.		3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
	[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D. and E. Burger, "Reducing the		[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D. and E. Burger, "Reducing the
	Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,		Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
	October 2011.		October 2011.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		Appendix A. Acknowledgements
	This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone		This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone
	session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks for John		session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks to, in
	Klensin [to be added] for motivation, input and review.		alphabetical order: Jari Arko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Spencer
			Dawkins, Randy Bush, Dave Cridland, Adrian Farrel, John Klensin, and
			Subramaniam Moonesamy for motivation, input and review.
	Appendix B. Internet Draft Editing History		Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions
	This section is to assist reviewers of this document. It will be		This section is to assist reviewers of this document.
	removed at publication as RFC.
			[Editor Note: Please remove this section and its subsections at
			publication]
	Appendix B.1. Version 00		Appendix B.1. Version 00
	Introduction and motivation		Introduction and motivation
	Verbatim copy from section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 of [RFC2026] of the		Verbatim copy from section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 of [RFC2026] of the
	Proposed and ant Internet Draft characterization into Section 3.1 and		Proposed and ant Internet Draft characterization into Section 3.1 and
	Section 3.2		Section 3.2
	Modification of paragraphs of the Proposed Standards		Modification of paragraphs of the Proposed Standards
	skipping to change at page 5, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶
	of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.		of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
	However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may		However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
	be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,		be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
	when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies		when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
	at scale is gathered.		at scale is gathered.
	Appendix B.2. Version 00->01		Appendix B.2. Version 00->01
	Added "Updates 2026" and added Sean's initial"		Added "Updates 2026" and added Sean's initial"
	Copied the whole characterization pararaph for Internet Standards		Copied the whole characterization paragraph for Internet Standards
	from 2026, instead of only the line that is the actual		from 2026, instead of only the line that is the actual
	characterization itself.		characterization itself.
	Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the		Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
	mailinglist.		mailinglist.
	Appendix B.3. Editors versioning info		Appendix B.3. Version 01->02
	$Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 6 2013-09-13		Sharpened the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction to be clear that the
	12:48:48Z olaf $		scope of the update is limited to section 4.1.1. and that this
			document should not be read stand-alone.
			Refined the "Further Considerations" Sections to express that as part
			of the process less mature specs are sometimes approved as Proposed
			Standards but that in those cases the documents should clearly
			indicate that.
			Minor editorial nits, and corrections.
			Appendix B.4. Editors versioning info
			$Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 11 2013-09-17
			16:17:54Z olaf $
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Olaf Kolkman		Olaf Kolkman
	Stichting NLnet Labs		Stichting NLnet Labs
	Science Park 400		Science Park 400
	Amsterdam, 1098 XH		Amsterdam, 1098 XH
	The Netherlands		The Netherlands
	Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl		Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
	URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/		URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
	Scott O. Bradner		Scott O. Bradner
	Harvard University Information Technology		Harvard University Information Technology
	Innovation and Architecture		Innovation and Architecture
	1350 Mass Ave., Room 760		1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
	Cambridge, MA 02138		Cambridge, MA 02138
	United States of America		United States of America
	Phone: +1 617 495 3864		Phone: +1 617 495 3864
	Email: sob@harvard.edu		Email: sob@harvard.edu
	URI: http://www.harvard.edu/huit		URI: http://www.harvard.edu/huit
End of changes. 23 change blocks.
	45 lines changed or deleted		69 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/