idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 218. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 195. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 202. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 208. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 224), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 38. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 5 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** 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.) ** There are 18 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 75: '...andard, the level of the standard MUST...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 77: '...fied by RFC 2026 MUST have elapsed. F...' -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2026, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2026 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2026, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1995-09-12) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 1, 2004) is 7146 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) No issues found here. Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group H. Alvestrand 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Updates: 2026 (if approved) E. Lear 5 Expires: April 1, 2005 Cisco Systems GmbH 6 October 1, 2004 8 Getting rid of the cruft: A procedure to deprecate old standards 9 draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 14 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 15 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 16 RFC 3668. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as 21 Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 1, 2005. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 40 Abstract 42 This document describes a procedure for performing the downgrading of 43 old standards described in RFC 2026, as well as BCPs, without placing 44 an unreasonable load on groups charged with performing other tasks in 45 the IETF. 47 It defines a new group, called the "Historical Standards Committee", 48 which shall recommend to the IESG downgrading or progressing 49 documents on the IETF standards track. Ultimate decisions still rest 50 of with the IESG, with appeal to the IAB. 52 1. Introduction and history 54 RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified timelines for review of 55 immature (draft or proposed) standards. The purpose of such review 56 was to determine whether such documents should be advanced, retired, 57 or developed further.[1] 59 This procedure has never been followed in the history of the IETF. 60 Since this procedure has not been followed, members of the community 61 have suggested that the retiring of a document to Historic is a 62 significant event, which should be justified carefully - leading to 63 the production of documents such as RFC 2556 (OSI connectionless 64 transport services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic 65 Status) and RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1433 to Historic Status). 67 Such documents require significant time and effort on the part of 68 authors, area directors, and the RFC Editor. Indeed such effort 69 should be reserved for advancing or maintaining immature standards. 70 Hence, no document should be required for an immature standard to be 71 retired. 73 2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure 75 In order to decommission a standard, the level of the standard MUST 76 be "proposed" or "draft" and the period of time for advancement as 77 specified by RFC 2026 MUST have elapsed. Furthermore, the Committee 78 will consider no document that is being actively revised by an IETF 79 working group. 81 N.B. elapse of time beyond the periods specified in RFC 2026 offers 82 an opportunity and NOT a mandate for review. The Committee should 83 make a judgement as to the appropriateness of a review. 85 The review procedure is as follows: 86 o For each standard to be reviewed, the Committee sends out a 87 message to the IETF list and the lists deemed relevant, asking for 88 implementation experience and active usage. 89 o If there are reports of implementation experience and/or active 90 usage, the RFC is moved into the Committee's Individual 91 Decommissioning Procedure. 92 o The Committee sends to the IESG the remaining list of documents it 93 recommends be reclassified as either Historic or Outdated along 94 with a record of steps taken to identify that standard"s use. 95 That record should include pointers to archives, as well as a log 96 of actions taken to seek out usage. 98 o The IESG will issue a Last Call for community input on all 99 documents in question. 100 o The IESG will respond to the Committee's recommendation with a 101 message to the IETF Announcement list, indicating which standards 102 are marked Historic. 103 o Remaining standards are left unchanged, and are not to be further 104 considered by the Committee for at least another twelve months. 106 3. Individual Decommissioning Procedure 108 This procedure is intended for use when one needs to consider more 109 detailed evidence before deciding what to do with a document. 111 3.1 Procedure 113 The Committee takes input from all sources it cares to take input 114 from. As it does so it will keep an archive and a record of all such 115 input. Once it determines a recommended action, it sends a 116 recommendation to the IESG along with a pointer to the record, and 117 the IESG will announce this to the IETF community if it agrees with 118 the recommendation. 120 3.2 Evaluation criteria 122 The decision on when to ask for reclassification is made by the 123 Committee. 125 Criteria that should be considered are: 127 o Usage. A standard that is widely used should probably be left 128 alone (better it should be advanced, but that is beyond the scope 129 of this memo). 130 o Implementation. A standard that is unimplemented is a clear 131 candidate to be reclassified as Historic. 132 o Potential for harm. A protocol that is unsafe where a clearly 133 superior alternative is available should be considered for 134 reclassification to Historic. 135 o Interest in further work. If there is a reasonable expectation 136 that the specification will be updated or advanced within a 137 reasonable timeframe, the Committee should do nothing. 139 4. Selection of the Committee 141 NOTE IN DRAFT: This is intended to be simple, and convey the idea 142 that signing up for this is an 1-year stint, not a permanent 143 position. 145 The IESG will send out a call for volunteers for the Cruft Committee 146 once a year, and will choose from the volunteers, and appoint a 147 chair. A current member of the Committee may volunteer again if he/ 148 she wants to. 150 The chair will report every six months via electronic mail to the 151 IETF Announce mailing list on the Committee's progress. 153 The Committee otherwise organizes its own work. 155 The IESG may cut short the term of the Committee and send out a new 156 call for volunteers if it finds that reasonable. 158 5. Acknowledgments 160 Members of the NEWTRK working group reviewed drafts of this memo. 162 6 Normative References 164 [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 165 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 167 Authors' Addresses 169 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 170 Cisco Systems 171 Weidemanns vei 27 172 Trondheim 7043 173 NO 175 EMail: harald@alvestrand.no 177 Eliot Lear 178 Cisco Systems GmbH 179 Glatt-com 180 Glattzentrum, ZH CH-8301 181 Switzerland 183 Phone: +41 1 878 7525 184 EMail: lear@cisco.com 186 Intellectual Property Statement 188 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 189 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 190 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 191 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 192 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 193 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 194 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 195 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 197 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 198 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 199 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 200 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 201 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 202 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 204 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 205 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 206 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 207 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 208 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 210 Disclaimer of Validity 212 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 213 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 214 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 215 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 216 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 217 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 218 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 220 Copyright Statement 222 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 223 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 224 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 226 Acknowledgment 228 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 229 Internet Society.