idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-standards-processv2-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-25) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. ** Expected the document's filename to be given on the first page, but didn't find any == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. -- The document date (June 1993) is 11272 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1410 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 1500) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1340 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 1700) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1311 (ref. '4') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1111 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 1543, RFC 2223) Summary: 14 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Draft Internet Architecture Board and 3 Expires: December 1993 Internet Engineering Steering Group 4 June 1993 6 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2 8 **DRAFT** 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 13 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, 14 and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 15 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 18 months. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by 19 other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet- 20 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a 21 ``working draft'' or ``work in progress.'' 23 Abstract 25 This document is a draft of the first revision of RFC-1310, which 26 defines the official procedures for creating and documenting Internet 27 Standards. This draft revision is being distributed to the Internet 28 community for comments and suggestions. 30 This revision includes the following major changes: 32 (a) The new management structure arising from the POISED Working 33 Group is reflected. These changes were agreed to by the IETF 34 plenary and by the IAB and IESG in November 1992 and accepted by 35 the ISOC Board of Trustees at their December 1992 meeting. 37 (b) Prototype status is added to the non-standards track maturity 38 levels (Section 2.4.1). 40 (c) The Intellectual Property Rights section is completely revised, 41 in accordance with legal advice. Section 5 of this document 42 replaces Sections 5 and 6 of RFC-1310. Note however, that the 43 new Section 5 is still incomplete and that it is awaiting review 44 by legal counsel. 46 (d) An appeals procedure is added (Section 3.6). 48 Finally, the document was reorganized into a more logical and 49 coherent structure. 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS 53 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2 54 1.1 Internet Standards. ...................................... 2 55 1.2 Organizations ............................................ 5 56 1.3 Standards-Related Publications ........................... 6 57 1.4 Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................ 8 58 2. NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 9 59 2.1 The Internet Standards Track ............................. 9 60 2.2 Types of Specifications .................................. 9 61 2.3 Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 11 62 2.4 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 12 63 2.5 Requirement Levels ....................................... 14 64 3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ............................... 15 65 3.1 Review and Approval ...................................... 15 66 3.3 Advancing in the Standards Track ......................... 17 67 3.4 Revising a Standard ...................................... 18 68 3.5 Retiring a Standard ...................................... 19 69 3.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals .......................... 19 70 4. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 20 71 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 22 72 5.1 Trade Secret Rights ...................................... 23 73 5.2 Patent Rights ............................................ 23 74 5.3 Copyright ................................................ 24 75 5.4 Notices And Agreements ................................... 25 76 6. REFERENCES ................................................... 25 77 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................. 26 78 APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS ....................................... 26 79 APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES ........................................ 27 81 1. INTRODUCTION 83 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 84 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. 86 1.1 Internet Standards. 88 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 89 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 90 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 91 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 92 isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which 93 are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards. 95 Internet Standards were once limited to those protocols composing 96 what has been commonly known as the "TCP/IP protocol suite". 97 However, the Internet has been evolving towards the support of 98 multiple protocol suites, especially the Open Systems 99 Interconnection (OSI) suite. The Internet Standards process 100 described in this document is concerned with all protocols, 101 procedures, and conventions that are used in or by the Internet, 102 whether or not they are part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. In the 103 case of protocols developed and/or standardized by non-Internet 104 organizations, however, the Internet Standards process may apply 105 only to the application of the protocol or procedure in the 106 Internet context, not to the specification of the protocol itself. 108 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 109 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 110 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 111 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 112 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 114 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 115 open and objective; to be retrospective; and to be flexible. 117 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 118 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting 119 Internet Standards. They provide ample opportunity for 120 participation and comment by all interested parties. At each 121 stage of the standardization process, a specification is 122 repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings 123 and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is made 124 available for review via world-wide on-line directories. 126 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and 127 adopting generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate 128 specification is implemented and tested for correct operation 129 and interoperability by multiple independent parties and 130 utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it 131 can be adopted as an Internet Standard. 133 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt 134 to the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 135 standardization process. Experience has shown this 136 flexibility to be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 138 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 139 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 140 parties to comment, all require significant time and effort. On 141 the other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 142 places an urgency on timely development of standards. The 143 Internet standardization rules described here are intended to 144 balance these conflicting goals. The process is believed to be as 145 short and simple as possible without undue sacrifice of technical 146 competence, prior testing, or openness and fairness. 148 In summary, the goals for the Internet standards process are: 150 * technical excellence; 152 * prior implementation and testing; 154 * clear, short, and easily understandable documentation; 156 * openness and fairness; and 158 * timeliness. 160 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 161 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 162 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 163 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 164 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 165 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 166 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 167 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance 168 of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the 169 difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification 170 for the Internet community. 172 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to 173 remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 174 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. 175 Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, 176 and services that support it should anticipate and embrace this 177 evolution as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 179 The procedures described in this document are the result of three 180 years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 181 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 182 Comments and suggestions are invited for improving these 183 procedures. 185 The remainder of this section describes the organizations and 186 publications involved in Internet standardization. Section 2 187 presents the nomenclature for different kinds and levels of 188 Internet standard technical specifications and their 189 applicability. Section 3 describes the process and rules for 190 Internet standardization. Section 4 defines how relevant 191 externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and 192 controlled by other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled in 193 the Internet standardization process. Section 5 presents the 194 rules that are required to protect intellectual property rights 195 and to assure unrestricted ability for all interested parties to 196 practice Internet Standards. 198 1.2 Organizations 200 The following organizations are involved in setting Internet 201 standards. 203 * ISOC 205 Internet standardization is an organized activity of the 206 Internet Society (ISOC). The ISOC is a professional society 207 that is concerned with the growth and evolution of the 208 worldwide Internet, with the way in which the Internet is and 209 can be used, and with the social, political, and technical 210 issues that arise as a result. 212 * IETF 214 The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the primary 215 body developing new Internet Standard specifications. The 216 IETF is composed of many Working Groups, which are organized 217 into areas, each of which is coordinated by one or more Area 218 Directors. 220 * IESG 222 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible 223 for technical management of IETF activities and the approval 224 of Internet standards specifications, using the rules given 225 in later sections of this document. The IESG is composed of 226 the IETF Area Directors, some at-large members, and the 227 chairperson of the IESG/IETF. 229 * IAB 231 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has been chartered by 232 the Internet Society Board of Trustees to provide quality 233 control and process appeals for the standards process, as 234 well as external technical liaison, organizational oversight, 235 and long-term architectural planning and research. 237 Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is 238 urged to participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups 239 and to attend IETF meetings. In many cases, active Working Group 240 participation is possible through email alone; furthermore, 241 Internet video conferencing is being used experimentally to allow 242 remote participation. Participation is by individual technical 243 contributors rather than formal representatives of organizations. 244 The process works because the IETF Working Groups display a spirit 245 of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity; 246 IETF participants recognize that the greatest benefit for all 247 members of the Internet community results from cooperative 248 development of technically superior protocols and services. 250 Members of the IESG and IAB are nominated for two-year terms by a 251 committee that is drawn from the roll of recent participation in 252 the IETF and chartered by the ISOC Board of Trustees. The 253 appointment of IESG and of IAB members are made from these 254 nominations by the IAB and by the ISOC Board of Trustees, 255 respectively. 257 The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) is not directly part of 258 the standards process. It investigates topics considered to be 259 too uncertain, too advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to 260 be the subject of Internet standardization. When an IRTF activity 261 generates a specification that is sufficiently stable to be 262 considered for Internet standardization, the specification is 263 processed through the IETF using the rules in this document. 265 1.3 Standards-Related Publications 267 1.3.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 269 Each distinct version of a specification is published as part 270 of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series. This 271 archival series is the official publication channel for 272 Internet standards documents and other publications of the 273 IESG, IAB, and Internet community. RFCs are available for 274 anonymous FTP from a nunber of Internet hosts. 276 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part 277 of the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project 278 (see Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide 279 range of topics, from early discussion of new research concepts 280 to status memos about the Internet. RFC publication is the 281 direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general 282 direction of the IAB. 284 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in 285 reference [5]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text, but some 286 RFCs are also available in PostScript*. The PostScript version 287 _________________________ 288 *PostScript is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems, 289 of an RFC may contain material (such as diagrams and figures) 290 that is not present in the ASCII version, and it may be 291 formatted differently. 293 ********************************************************* 294 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 295 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 296 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 297 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 298 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 299 * * 300 ********************************************************* 302 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 303 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Official Protocol 304 Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and other 305 helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 306 specification. See Section 3.1.3 below. 308 Some RFCs document Internet standards. These RFCs form the 309 'STD' subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification 310 has been adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the 311 additional label "STDxxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its 312 place in the RFC series. 314 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the 315 Internet should or will become Internet Standards. Such non- 316 standards track specifications are not subject to the rules for 317 Internet standardization. Generally, they will be published 318 directly as RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor and the 319 IESG. These RFCs will be marked "Prototype", "Experimental" or 320 "Informational" as appropriate (see section 2.3). 322 ******************************************************** 323 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 324 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 325 * standards track documents reach the level of * 326 * Internet Standard. * 327 ******************************************************** 329 1.3.2 Internet Drafts 331 During the development of a specification, draft versions of 332 the document are made available for informal review and comment 333 by placing them in the IETF's "Internet Drafts" directory, 334 _________________________ 335 Inc. 337 which is replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes 338 an evolving working document readily available to a wide 339 audience, facilitating the process of review and revision. 341 An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has 342 remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more 343 than six months without being recommended by the IESG for 344 publication as an RFC, is simply removed from the Internet 345 Draft directory. At any time, an Internet Draft may be 346 replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, 347 restarting the six-month timeout period. 349 An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a 350 specification; specifications are published through the RFC 351 mechanism described in the previous section. Internet Drafts 352 have no formal status, are not part of the permanent archival 353 record of Internet activity, and are subject to change or 354 removal at any time. 356 ******************************************************** 357 * Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft * 358 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-* 359 * Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 360 * with an Internet-Draft. * 361 ******************************************************** 363 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track 364 specification that may be reasonably be expected to be 365 published as an RFC using the phrase "RFC in preparation", 366 without referencing an Internet Draft. 368 1.4 Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) 370 Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other 371 parameters that must be uniquely assigned. Examples include 372 version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers. 373 The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 374 (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the 375 Internet. The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned 376 numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [3]. 378 Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some 379 protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet 380 Standard. For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP 381 is a Standard. A particular value within a category may be 382 assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification 383 requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be 384 Experimental, or it may be private. Note that assignment of a 385 number to a protocol is independent of, and does not imply, 386 acceptance of that protocol as a standard. 388 Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values, 389 so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or 390 private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA. Private 391 protocols often become public. Programmers are often tempted to 392 choose a "random" value or to guess the next unassigned value of a 393 parameter; both are hazardous. 395 The IANA is expected to avoid frivolous assignments and to 396 distinguish different assignments uniquely. The IANA accomplishes 397 both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol 398 or service to which a value is to be assigned. Judgment on the 399 adequacy of the description resides with the IANA. In the case of 400 a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding 401 technical specifications provide the required documentation for 402 IANA. For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential 403 any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page) 404 writeup is still required for an assignment. 406 2. NOMENCLATURE 408 2.1 The Internet Standards Track 410 Specifications that are destined to become Internet Standards 411 evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards 412 track". These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft 413 Standard", and "Standard" -- are defined and discussed below in 414 Section 3.2. 416 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet 417 Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and 418 the recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and 419 procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement 420 of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of 421 descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet 422 Standards. A set of maturity levels is defined in Section 3.3 to 423 cover these and other "off-track" specifications. 425 2.2 Types of Specifications 427 Specifications subject to the Internet standardization process 428 fall into two categories: Technical Specifications (TS) and 429 Applicability Statements (AS). 431 2.2.1 Technical Specification (TS) 433 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, 434 service, procedure, convention, or format. It may completely 435 describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may 436 leave one or more parameters or options unspecified. A TS may 437 be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material 438 from other specifications by reference to other documents 439 (which may or may not be Internet Standards). 441 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general 442 intent for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that 443 is inherently specific to a particular context shall contain a 444 statement to that effect. However, a TS does not specify 445 requirements for its use within the Internet; these 446 requirements, which depend on the particular context in which 447 the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, is 448 defined by an Applicability Statement. 450 2.2.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 452 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 453 circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a 454 particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs 455 that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 4. 457 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which 458 they are to be combined, and may also specify particular values 459 or ranges of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol 460 that must be implemented. An AS also specifies the 461 circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required, 462 recommended, or elective. 464 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a 465 restricted "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, 466 terminal servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, 467 or datagram-based database servers. 469 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance 470 specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a 471 particular class of Internet systems, such as Internet routers 472 or Internet hosts. 474 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards 475 track than any standards-track TS to which the AS applies. For 476 example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an 477 AS at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by 478 an AS at the Standard level. Like a TS, an AS does not come 479 into effect until it reaches Standard level. 481 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 482 standards- track document may combine an AS and one or more 483 related TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are 484 developed specifically and exclusively for some particular domain 485 of applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain 486 within a single specification all of the relevant AS and TS 487 information. In such cases, no useful purpose would be served by 488 deliberately distributing the information among several documents 489 just to preserve the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that 490 is likely to apply to more than one domain of applicability should 491 be developed in a modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation 492 by multiple ASs. 494 2.3 Standards Track Maturity Levels 496 ASs and TSs go through stages of development, testing, and 497 acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages 498 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 500 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 501 characteristics of specifications at each level. The general 502 procedures for developing a specification and processing it 503 through the maturity levels along the standards track were 504 discussed in Section 2 above. 506 2.3.1 Proposed Standard 508 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 509 Standard". A Proposed Standard specification is generally 510 stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be 511 well-understood, has received significant community review, and 512 appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered 513 valuable. However, further experience might result in a change 514 or even retraction of the specification before it advances. 516 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 517 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 518 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and 519 will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed 520 Standard designation. 522 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational 523 experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a 524 specification that materially affects the core Internet 525 protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant 526 operational impact on the Internet. Typically, such a 527 specification will be published initially with Experimental or 528 Prototype status (see below), and moved to the standards track 529 only after sufficient implementation or operational experience 530 has been obtained. 532 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions 533 with respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the 534 IESG may recommend that this requirement be explicitly reduced 535 in order to allow a protocol to advance into the Proposed 536 Standard state, when a specification is considered to be useful 537 and necessary (and timely), even absent the missing features. 538 For example, some protocols have been advanced by explicitly 539 deciding to omit security features, since an overall security 540 architecture was still under development. 542 2.3.2 Draft Standard 544 A specification from which at least two independent and 545 interoperable implementations have been developed, and for 546 which sufficient successful operational experience has been 547 obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. This 548 is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that 549 the specification is mature and will be useful. 551 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 552 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 553 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional 554 or more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 555 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to 556 demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale 557 use in production environments. 559 2.3.3 Internet Standard 561 A specification for which significant implementation and 562 successful operational experience has been obtained may be 563 elevated to the Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard 564 (which may simply be referred to as a Standard) is 565 characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a 566 generally held belief that the specified protocol or service 567 provides significant benefit to the Internet community. 569 2.4 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 571 Not every TS or AS is on the standards track. A TS may not be 572 intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for 573 eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 574 track. A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent 575 Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or 576 disfavor. 578 Specifications not on the standards track are labeled with one of 579 four off-track maturity levels: "Prototype, "Experimental", 580 "Informational", and "Historic". There are no time limits 581 associated with these non-standard track labels, and the documents 582 bearing these labels are not Internet standards in any sense. 584 2.4.1 Prototype 586 The "Prototype" designation on a TS indicates a specification 587 for which the eventual destination may be the standards track, 588 but which is not at present sufficiently mature to enter the 589 standards track. For example, a Prototype TS may result in 590 behavior that is not completely understood, or it may have 591 known technical omissions or architectural defects. It may 592 undergo significant changes before entering the standards 593 track, or it may be discarded in favor of another proposal. 594 One use of the Prototype designation is the dissemination of a 595 specification as it undergoes development and testing. 597 A Prototype specification will generally be the output of an 598 organized Internet engineering effort, for example a Working 599 Group of the IETF. An IETF Working Group should submit a 600 document that is intended for Prototype status to the IESG. 601 The IESG will forward it to the RFC Editor for publication, 602 after verifying that there has been adequate coordination with 603 the standards process. 605 2.4.2 Experimental 607 The "Experimental" designation on a TS typically indicates a 608 specification that is part of some research or development 609 effort. Such a specification is published for the general 610 information of the Internet technical community and as an 611 archival record of the work. An Experimental specification may 612 be the output of an organized Internet research effort (e.g., a 613 Research Group of the IRTF), or it may be an individual 614 contribution. 616 Documents intended for Experimental status should be submitted 617 directly to the RFC Editor for publication. The procedure is 618 intended to expedite the publication of any responsible 619 Experimental specification, subject only to editorial 620 considerations, and to verification that there has been 621 adequate coordination with the standards process. 623 2.4.3 Informational 625 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 626 information of the Internet community, and does not represent 627 an Internet community consensus or recommendation. The 628 procedure is intended to expedite the publication of any 629 responsible informational document, subject only to editorial 630 considerations and to verification that there has been adequate 631 coordination with the standards process. 633 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 634 community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards 635 process by any of the provisions of Section 4 may be published 636 as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner. 638 2.4.4 Historic 640 A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent 641 specification or is for any other reason considered to be 642 obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have 643 suggested that the word should be "Historical"; however, at 644 this point the use of "Historic" is historical.) 646 2.5 Requirement Levels 648 An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 649 of the TSs to which it refers: 651 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified 652 by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For 653 example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet 654 systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 656 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 657 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or 658 generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability 659 in the domain of applicability of the AS. Vendors are 660 strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and 661 protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should 662 omit them only if the omission is justified by some special 663 circumstance. 665 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 666 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 667 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 668 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular 669 user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific 670 environment. 672 As noted in Section 2.4, there are TSs that are not in the 673 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 674 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 675 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 676 such TSs: 678 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered appropriate for use only 679 in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 680 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should 681 generally be limited to those actively involved with the 682 experiment. 684 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 685 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be 686 because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or 687 historic status. 689 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general requirement 690 level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. 691 In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the requirement 692 levels of particular protocols and of individual features of the 693 protocols will be found in appropriate ASs. 695 3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 697 3.1 Review and Approval 699 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 700 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- 701 must be approved by the IESG. 703 3.1.1 Initiation of Action 705 Typically, a standards action is initiated by a recommendation 706 to the appropriate IETF Area Director by the individual or 707 group that is responsible for the specification, usually an 708 IETF Working Group. 710 After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the 711 cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter 712 or advance in the Internet standardization process shall be 713 made available as an Internet Draft. It shall remain as an 714 Internet Draft for a period of time that permits useful 715 community review, at least two weeks, before submission to the 716 IESG with a recommendation for action. 718 3.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 720 The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the 721 applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections 722 3.2 and 3.3 of this document). 724 The IESG shall determine if an independent technical review of 725 the specification is required, and shall commission one when 726 necessary. This may require creating a new Working Group, or 727 an existing group may agree to take responsibility for 728 reviewing the specification. When a specification is 729 sufficiently important in terms of its potential impact on the 730 Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG shall 731 form an independent technical review and analysis committee to 732 prepare an evaluation of the specification. Such a committee 733 is commissioned to provide an objective basis for agreement 734 within the Internet community that the specification is ready 735 for advancement. 737 The IESG shall communicate its findings to the IETF to permit a 738 final review by the general Internet community. This "last- 739 call" notification shall be via electronic mail to the IETF 740 mailing list. In addition, for important specifications there 741 shall be a presentation or statement by the appropriate Working 742 Group or Area Director during an IETF plenary meeting. Any 743 significant issues that have not been resolved satisfactorily 744 during the development of the specification may be raised at 745 this time for final resolution by the IESG. 747 In a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after issuing 748 the last-call notification to the IETF mailing list, the IESG 749 shall make its final determination on whether or not to approve 750 the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision 751 via email. 753 3.1.3 Publication 755 Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the 756 RFC Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC. The 757 specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts 758 directory. 760 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending 761 shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter. 762 This shall constitute the Journal of Record for Internet 763 standards actions. In addition, the IESG shall publish a 764 monthly summary of standards actions completed and pending in 765 the Internet Monthly Report, which is distributed to all 766 members of the IETF mailing list. 768 Finally, the IAB shall publish quarterly an "Official Protocol 769 Standards" RFC, summarizing the status of all Internet protocol 770 and service specifications, both within and outside the 771 standards track. 773 3.2 Entering the Standards Track 775 A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may 776 originate from: 778 (a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group), 780 (b) independent activity by individuals, or 782 (c) an external organization. 784 Here (a) represents the great majority of cases. In cases (b) and 785 (c), the work might be tightly integrated with the work of an 786 existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered for 787 standardization without prior IETF involvement. In most cases, a 788 specification resulting from an effort that took place outside of 789 an IETF Working Group will be submitted to an appropriate Working 790 Group for evaluation and refinement. If necessary, an appropriate 791 Working Group will be created. 793 For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated 794 with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to 795 afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability 796 of the specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all 797 technical and usage questions, additional independent review may 798 be necessary. Such reviews may be done within a Working Group 799 context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically 800 for that purpose. It is the responsibility of the appropriate 801 IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of an 802 external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted. 804 3.3 Advancing in the Standards Track 806 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 807 least six (6) months. 809 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at 810 least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has 811 occurred, whichever comes later. 813 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity 814 for community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 815 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 816 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 817 publication, the date of IESG approval of the action. 819 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 820 Standard level but has remained at the same status level for 821 twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 822 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability 823 of the standardization effort responsible for that specification. 824 Following each such review, the IESG shall approve termination or 825 continuation of the development. This decision shall be 826 communicated to the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing 827 list, to allow the Internet community an opportunity to comment. 828 This provision is not intended to threaten a legitimate and active 829 Working Group effort, but rather to provide an administrative 830 mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 832 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 833 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG 834 shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 835 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 836 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a 837 significant revision may require that the specification accumulate 838 more experience at its current maturity level before progressing. 839 Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly, 840 the IESG may recommend that the revision be treated as a new 841 document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning. 843 Change of status shall result in republication of the 844 specification as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have 845 been no changes at all in the specification since the last 846 publication. Generally, desired changes will be "batched" for 847 incorporation at the next level in the standards track. However, 848 deferral of changes to the next standards action on the 849 specification will not always be possible or desirable; for 850 example, an important typographical error, or a technical error 851 that does not represent a change in overall function of the 852 specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 853 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC 854 with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-at- 855 level clock. 857 3.4 Revising a Standard 859 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 860 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 861 completely new specification. Once the new version has reached 862 the Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, 863 which will move to Historic status. However, in some cases both 864 versions may remain as Internet Standards, to honor the 865 requirements of an installed base. In this situation, the 866 relationship between the previous and the new versions must be 867 explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another 868 appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see 869 Section 2.2.2). 871 3.5 Retiring a Standard 873 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 874 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that 875 one or more existing Internet Standards for the same function 876 should be retired. In this case, the IESG shall approve a change 877 of status of the superseded specification(s) from Standard to 878 Historic. This recommendation shall be issued with the same 879 Last-Call and notification procedures used for any other standards 880 action. 882 3.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 884 IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which 885 sometimes requires difficult compromises between differing 886 technical solutions. However, there are times when even 887 reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To 888 achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be 889 resolved with a process of open review and discussion. 890 Participants in a Working Group may disagree with Working Group 891 decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are 892 not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working 893 Group made a technical choice which essentially will not work. 894 The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process, and 895 the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two kinds of 896 disagreements may have different kinds of final outcome, but the 897 resolution process is the same for both cases. 899 Working Group participants always should first attempt to discuss 900 their concerns with the Working Group chair. If this proves 901 unsatisfactory, they should raise their concerns with an IESG Area 902 Director or other IESG member. In most cases, issues raised to 903 the level of the IESG will receive consideration by the entire 904 IESG, with the relevant Area Director or the IETF Chair being 905 tasked with communicating results of the discussion. 907 For the general community as well as Working Group participants 908 seeking a larger audience for their concerns, there are two 909 opportunities for explicit comment. (1) When appropriate, a 910 specification that is being suggested for advancement along the 911 standards track will be presented during an IETF plenary. At that 912 time, IETF participants may choose to raise issues with the 913 plenary or to pursue their issues privately, with any of the 914 relevant IETF/IESG management personnel. (2) Specifications that 915 are to be considered by the IESG are publicly announced to the 916 IETF mailing list, with a request for comments. 918 Finally, if a problem persists, the IAB may be asked to adjudicate 919 the dispute. 921 * If a concern involves questions of adequate Working Group 922 discussion, the IAB will attempt to determine the actual 923 nature and extent of discussion that took place within the 924 Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record 925 and upon comments of other Working Group participants. 927 * If a concern involves questions of technical adequacy, the 928 IAB may convene an appropriate review panel, which may then 929 recommend that the IESG and Working Group re-consider an 930 alternate technical choice. 932 * If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical 933 approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working 934 Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working 935 Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate 936 Working Group. The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points 937 of view and the development of technical options, allowing 938 the general Internet community to show preference by making 939 its own choices, rather than by having legislated decisions. 941 4. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 943 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 944 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 945 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 946 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 947 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 948 specifications. 950 There are two categories of external specifications: 952 (1) Open Standards 954 Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as 955 ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, develop a variety of protocol and 956 service specifications that are similar to Technical 957 Specifications defind here. National and international groups 958 also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to 959 Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation- 960 specific detail concerned with the practical application of 961 their standards. 963 (2) Vendor Specifications 965 A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely 966 used in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as 967 if it were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally 968 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 969 controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it. 971 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 972 Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an 973 "Internet version" of an existing external specification, unless an 974 explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However, 975 there are several ways in which an external specification that is 976 important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be 977 adopted for Internet use. 979 (a) Incorporation of an Open Standard 981 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 982 standard by reference. The reference must be to a specific 983 version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or 984 by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the 985 organization that is responsible for the specification. 987 For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference 988 the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2]. Whenever possible, 989 the referenced specification shall be made available online. 991 (b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification 993 Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by 994 reference to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the 995 vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily 996 available, the IESG may request that it be published as an 997 Informational RFC. 999 For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within 1000 the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the 1001 requirements of section 5 below, and in general the 1002 specification shall be made available online. 1004 The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary 1005 specification over the technically equivalent and competing 1006 specifications of other vendors by making it "required" or 1007 "recommended". 1009 (c) Assumption 1011 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification 1012 and develop it into an Internet TS or AS, if the specification 1013 is provided to the Working Group in compliance with the 1014 requirements of section 5 below, and if change control must have 1015 been conveyed to IETf by the original developer of the 1016 specification. Continued participation in the IETF work by the 1017 original owner is likely to be valuable, and it is encouraged. 1019 The following sample text illustrates how a vendor might convey 1020 change control to the Internet Society, per (c): 1022 "XXXX Organization asserts that it has the right to transfer to 1023 the Internet Society responsibility for further evolution of the 1024 YYYY protocol documented in References (1-n) below. XXXX 1025 Organization hereby transfers to the Internet Society 1026 responsibilty for all future modification and development of the 1027 YYYY protocol, without reservation or condition." 1029 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1031 [This section is current under review by ISOC counsel, and is not 1032 final.] 1034 In all matters of intellectual property rights, the intention is to 1035 benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while 1036 respecting the known, legitimate rights of others. 1038 In this section: 1040 o "applicable patents" or "applicable pending patents" means 1041 purportedly valid patents or patent applications that 1042 purportedly apply to technology required to practice an Internet 1043 standard. 1045 o "Trade secrets" means confidential, proprietary information. 1047 o "ISOC" includes the Internet Society, its trustees, officers, 1048 employees, contractors, and agents, IAB, IETF, IESG, IRTF, IRSG, 1049 and Internet Working Groups, Research Groups, and committees. 1051 o "Standards work" includes the creation, development, testing, 1052 revision, adoption, or maintenance of an Internet standard. 1054 o "Standards documents" include specifications, RFCs, and 1055 Proposed, Draft, and Internet Standards. 1057 o "Internet community" means the entire set of people using the 1058 Internet standards, directly or indirectly. 1060 5.1 Trade Secret Rights 1062 ISOC will not accept, in connection with its standards work, any 1063 technology or information subject to any commitment, 1064 understanding, or agreement to keep it confidential or otherwise 1065 restrict its use or dissemination. 1067 5.2 Patent Rights 1069 (A) ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any 1070 standard which can only be practiced using technology that is 1071 subject to known applicable patents or patent applications, 1072 except with prior written assurance that: 1074 1. ISOC may, without cost, freely use the technology in its 1075 standards work, and 1077 2. upon adoption and during maintenance of a standard, any 1078 party will be able to obtain the right to use the 1079 technology under specified, reasonable, non- 1080 discriminatory terms. 1082 3. the party giving the assurance has the right and power 1083 to grant the licenses and knows of no other applicable 1084 patents or patent applications or other intellectual 1085 property rights that may prevent ISOC and users of 1086 Internet standards from practicing the standard. 1088 When such written assurance has been obtained, the standards 1089 documents shall include the following notice: 1091 "__________(name of patent owner) has provided written 1092 assurance to the Internet Society that any party will be 1093 able to obtain, under reasonable, nondiscriminatory 1094 terms, the right to use the technology covered 1095 by__________(list patents and patent applications) to 1096 practice the standard. A copy of the assurance may be 1097 obtained from ________. The Internet Society takes no 1098 position on the validity or scope of the patents and 1099 patent applications, nor on the appropriateness of the 1100 terms of the assurance. The Internet Society makes no 1101 representation there are no other intellectual property 1102 rights which apply to practicing this standard, nor that 1103 it has made any effort to identify any such intellectual 1104 property rights." 1106 (B) ISOC encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1107 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of 1108 any applicable patents or patent applications. For this 1109 purpose, each standards document will include the following 1110 invitation: 1112 "The Internet Society invites any interested party to 1113 bring to its attention any patents or patent applications 1114 which purport to cover technology that may be required to 1115 practice this standard. Address the information to 1116 the Executive Director of the Internet Society." 1118 When applicable, the following sentence will be included in 1119 the notice: 1121 "As of __________, no information about any applicable patents 1122 or patent applications has been received." 1124 (C) ISOC disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1125 existence of or for evaluating applicable patents or patent 1126 applications on behalf of or for the benefit of any member of 1127 the Internet community. 1129 (D) ISOC takes no position on the validity or scope of any 1130 applicable patent or patent application. 1132 (E) ISOC will take no position on the ownership of inventions 1133 made during standards work, except for inventions of which an 1134 employee or agent of the Internet Society is a joint 1135 inventor. In the latter case, the Internet Society will make 1136 its rights available to anyone in the Internet community on a 1137 royalty-free basis. 1139 [The following sections are to be written.] 1141 5.3 Copyright 1142 5.4 Notices And Agreements 1144 5.4.1 Notices to appear in Standards Documents 1146 5.4.2 Confirmation of implied Licenses 1148 5.4.3 Text 1150 6. REFERENCES 1152 [1] Postel, J., "IAB Official Protocol Standards", RFC 1410, IAB, 1153 March 1993. 1155 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1156 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1158 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1340, ISI, 1159 July 1992. 1161 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, ISI, 1162 March 1992. 1164 [5] Postel, J., "Request for Comments on Request for Comments", RFC 1165 1111, August 1989. 1167 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1169 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1170 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1171 AS: Applicability Statement 1172 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1173 ITU-TS: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International 1174 Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization; 1175 ITU-TS was formerly called CCITT. 1176 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1177 IANA: Internet Assigned Number Authority 1178 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1179 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1180 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1181 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1182 IP: Internet Protocol 1183 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1184 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1185 ISOC: Internet Society 1186 MIB: Management Information Base 1187 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1188 RFC: Request for Comments 1189 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1190 TS: Technical Specification 1192 APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS 1194 To contact the RFC Editor, send an email message to: "rfc- 1195 editor@isi.edu". 1197 To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword 1198 or parameter assignment send an email message to: "iana@isi.edu". 1200 To contact the IESG, send an email message to: "iesg@isi.edu". 1202 To contact the IAB, send an email message to: "iab-contact@isi.edu" 1204 To contact the Executive Director of the ISOC, send an email message 1205 to Executive-Director@isoc.org". 1207 APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES 1209 It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following 1210 areas should be considered. 1212 o Policy Recommendations and Operational Guidelines 1214 Internet standards have generally been concerned with the 1215 technical specifications for hardware and software required for 1216 computer communication across interconnected networks. The 1217 Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great 1218 variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules. 1219 However, good user service requires that the operators and 1220 administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for 1221 policies and operations. While these guidelines are generally 1222 different in scope and style from protocol standards, their 1223 establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. 1224 Specific rules for establishing policy recommendations and 1225 operational guidelines for the Internet in an open and fair 1226 fashion should be developed, published, and adopted by the 1227 Internet community. 1229 o Industry Consortia 1231 The rules presented in Section 4 for external standards should 1232 be expanded to handle industry consortia. 1234 o Tracking Procedure 1236 It has been suggested that there should be a formal procedure 1237 for tracking problems and change requests as a specification 1238 moves through the standards track. Such a procedure might 1239 include written responses, which were cataloged and 1240 disseminated, or simply a database that listed changes between 1241 versions. At the present time, there are not sufficient 1242 resources to administer such a procedure. 1244 A simpler proposal is to keep a change log for documents. 1246 o Time Limit 1248 An explicit time limit (e.g., 3 months) has been suggested for 1249 IESG resolution concerning a standards action under the rules of 1250 Section 3.1.2. If it were necessary to extend the time for some 1251 reason, the IETF would have to be explicitly notified. 1253 o Bug Reporting 1254 There is no documented mechanism for an individual community 1255 member to use to report a problem or bug with a standards-track 1256 specification. One suggestion was the every standards RFC 1257 should include an email list for the responsible Working Group. 1259 Security Considerations 1261 Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo. 1263 Author's Address 1265 Christian Huitema, IAB Chairman 1266 INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis 1267 2004 Route des Lucioles 1268 BP 109 1269 F-06561 Valbonne Cedex 1270 France 1272 Phone: +33 93 65 77 15 1274 EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR 1276 Phill Gross, IESG Chairman 1277 Advanced Network and Services 1278 100 Clearbrook Road 1279 Elmsford, NY 10523 1281 Phone: 914-789-5335 1283 EMail: pgross@nis.ans.net