< draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-03.txt		draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-04.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: Best Current Practice Harvard University		Intended status: Best Current Practice Harvard University
	Expires: March 20, 2014 S. Turner		Expires: April 18, 2014 S. Turner
	IECA, Inc.		IECA, Inc.
	September 18, 2013		October 17, 2013
	Characterization of Proposed Standards		Characterization of Proposed Standards
	draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-03		draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed		RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
	Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This		Standard RFCs and states the maturity level of those documents. This
	document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by		document clarifies those descriptions and updates RFC 2026 by
	providing a new characterization Proposed Standards.		providing a new characterization of 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 20, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 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. IETF Reveiew of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. IETF Review of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Characterization of Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		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 . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		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 Notes and RFC Editor Instructions . . . 5		Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions . . . 5
	Appendix B.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix B.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Appendix B.2. Version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Appendix B.2. Version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix B.3. Version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Appendix B.3. Version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix B.4. Version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Appendix B.4. Version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix B.5. Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Appendix B.5. Version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			Appendix B.6. Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 IETF		In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026] the IETF
	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 exclusively updates the characterization of Proposed		This document exclusively updates the characterization of Proposed
	Standards from RFC2026 Section 4.1.1 and does not speak to or alter		Standards from RFC2026 Section 4.1.1 and does not speak to or alter
	the procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from		the procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from
	RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410]. For complete understanding of the		RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410]. For complete understanding of the
	requirements for standardization those documents should be read in		requirements for standardization those documents should be read in
	conjunction with this document.		conjunction with this document.
	2. IETF Reveiew of Proposed Standards		2. IETF Review 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 IETF strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically		the IETF 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
	IETF to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the		IETF to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
	Standard Track 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 reviews.
	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. The IETF review is
	is more extensive than that done in most other SDOs owing to the		possibly more extensive than that done in most other SDOs owing to
	cross-area technical review performed by the IETF, exemplified by		the cross-area technical review performed by the IETF, exemplified by
	technical review by the full IESG at last stage of specification		technical review by the full IESG at the last stage of specification
	development. That position is further strengthened by the common		development. That position is further strengthened by the common
	presence of interoperable running code and implementation before		presence of interoperable running code and implementation before
	publication as a Proposed Standard.		publication as a Proposed Standard.
	3. Characterization of Specification		3. Characterization of Specification
	Section 3.1 of this document replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section		Section 3.1 of this document replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section
	3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet Standards		3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet Standards
	from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient reference.		from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient reference.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 54 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 54 ¶
	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 to, in		session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks to, in
	alphabetical order: Jari Arko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Spencer		alphabetical order: Jari Arkko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Spencer
	Dawkins, Randy Bush, Dave Cridland, Adrian Farrel, John Klensin, and		Dawkins, Randy Bush, Benoit Claise, Dave Cridland, Adrian Farrel,
	Subramaniam Moonesamy for motivation, input and review.		John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy for motivation, input, and
			review.
	Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions		Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions
	This section is to assist reviewers of this document.		This section is to assist reviewers of this document.
	[Editor Note: Please remove this section and its subsections at		[Editor Note: Please remove this section and its subsections at
	publication]		publication]
	Appendix B.1. Version 00		Appendix B.1. Version 00
	skipping to change at page 6, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶
	Standards but that in those cases the documents should clearly		Standards but that in those cases the documents should clearly
	indicate that.		indicate that.
	Minor editorial nits, and corrections.		Minor editorial nits, and corrections.
	Appendix B.4. Version 02->03		Appendix B.4. Version 02->03
	Changed a number of occurances where IESG review was used to the		Changed a number of occurances where IESG review was used to the
	intended IETF review.		intended IETF review.
	Appendix B.5. Editors versioning info		Appendix B.5. Version 03->04
	$Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 14 2013-09-18		s/In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done in most
	13:46:15Z olaf $		other SDOs/The IETF review is possibly more extensive than that done
			in most other SDOs/
	Authors' Addresses		Minor spelling and style errors
			Appendix B.6. Editors versioning info
			$Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 16 2013-10-17
			13:22:30Z olaf $
			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. 16 change blocks.
	20 lines changed or deleted		30 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/