idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-newtrk-sd-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 3978, Section 5.1.a on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 229. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 206. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 213. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 219. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** 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: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (February 7, 2005) is 7016 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 151, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1311' is defined on line 161, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1396' is defined on line 164, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1602' is defined on line 167, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2223' is defined on line 170, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3774' is defined on line 173, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1602 (Obsoleted by RFC 2026) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2223 (Obsoleted by RFC 7322) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Klensin 3 Internet-Draft February 7, 2005 4 Expires: August 11, 2005 6 Standing Documents Describing IETF Processes and Operations 7 draft-ietf-newtrk-sd-00.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 12 of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 13 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 14 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 15 which he or she 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 August 11, 2005. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 40 Abstract 42 The "ISD" model for specifying the definition, status, and content of 43 Internet Standards does not appear to be satisfactory for the 44 documents that describe IETF procedures, structure, or relationships 45 with other bodies. Those documents have traditionally be published 46 as BCPs and described as "process" BCPs. This document proposes an 47 special document series for those process documents, paralleling the 48 ISDs. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Proposal Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. A New Document Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Content and Organization of an ISD Document . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6 66 1. Introduction 68 [[ Note in draft: The on-list discussions of the ISD specification 69 seem to have concluded that including the IETF procedural BCP 70 documents in the ISD series would be a mistake for a number of 71 different reasons. This document is posted as a placeholder in the 72 event that the NEWTRK WG concludes that the general ISD idea would be 73 appropriate for process documents, but that the ISD series is not the 74 right repository. If the WG makes that decision, the present author 75 would welcome a volunteer to take this document over and coordinate 76 drawing the details together. ]] 78 The "ISD" model for specifying the definition, status, and content of 79 Internet Standards [repurposing-ISD] does not appear to be 80 satisfactory for the documents that describe IETF procedures, 81 structure, or relationships with other bodies. Those documents have 82 traditionally be published as BCPs and described as "process" BCPs. 83 This document proposes an special document series for those process 84 documents, paralleling the ISDs. 86 Other standards bodies seem to have similar series. They are called 87 "Standing Documents" in INCITS and many other ANSI-accredited SDOs, 88 "Directives" in ISO and ISO/IEC JTC1, and A-series Recommendations or 89 WTSA Resolutions in ITU-T. 91 2. Proposal Overview 93 This document proposes that a new document series be created, called 94 IETF Standing Documents ("IETFSD"s) and that these be real documents, 95 separate from the underlying RFCs. The documents would be managed 96 under the direction of the IESG as part of the IETF procedural 97 definition process, rather than being simply undifferentiated BCPs. 99 [[ Note in Draft: A better name, one less likely to be confused with 100 "ISD" is solicited. ]] 102 3. A New Document Series 104 This set of documents could be initialized simply by creating 105 template reference documents to the existing process BCP RFCs, 106 complementing their BCP identities. While it would be desirable to 107 remove the target documents from the BCP series entirely, existing 108 references to them by BCP numbers would require a long transition 109 period before doing so. 111 Since these documents, following the ISD model, would involve a 112 lighter-weight modification process than issuing a completely new 113 RFC, they could accommodate minor changes to the procedures by inline 114 notes. They could also act as a repository for IESG operational 115 notes, such as "id-nits". 117 4. Content and Organization of an ISD Document 119 [[ Placeholder -- details to be developed if the WG decides to go 120 down this path]] 122 5. Transition 124 The Internet-Draft [ISD-Examples-Process] appears to contain most of 125 the information needed to create this series. An alternative to a 126 series is to create a single master standing document that refers to 127 the RFCs and policy statements that would otherwise make up the 128 document collection. That I-D would essentially be the first draft 129 of that document. 131 6. IANA Considerations 133 This document does not anticipate any specific tasks for the IANA. 134 The IANA has traditionally not been involved in maintaining 135 registries for IETF process activities. 137 7. Security Considerations 139 This document specifies an administrative procedure for the IETF and 140 hence does not raise any new issues about the security of the 141 Internet. 143 8. Acknowledgements 145 [[ To be supplied ]] 147 9. References 149 9.1 Normative References 151 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 152 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 154 9.2 Informative References 156 [ISD-Examples-Process] 157 Bradner, S., "Sample ISD for the IETF Standards Process", 158 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-00, October 159 2004. 161 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 162 March 1992. 164 [RFC1396] Crocker, S., "The Process for Organization of Internet 165 Standards Working Group (POISED)", RFC 1396, January 1993. 167 [RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process 168 -- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994. 170 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", 171 RFC 2223, October 1997. 173 [RFC3774] Davies, E., "IETF Problem Statement", RFC 3774, May 2004. 175 [repurposing-ISD] 176 Klensin, J. and J. Loughney, "Internet Standards 177 Documentation (ISDs)", 178 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-02a, 179 February 2005. 181 [rfc2223bis] 182 Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for 183 Comments (RFC) Authors", 184 Internet-Draft draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07, August 185 2003. 187 Author's Address 189 John C Klensin 190 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 191 Cambridge, MA 02140 192 USA 194 Phone: +1 617 491 5735 195 Email: john-ietf@jck.com 197 Intellectual Property Statement 199 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 200 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 201 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 202 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 203 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 204 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 205 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 206 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 208 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 209 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 210 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 211 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 212 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 213 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 215 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 216 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 217 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 218 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 219 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 221 Disclaimer of Validity 223 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 224 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 225 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 226 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 227 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 228 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 229 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 231 Copyright Statement 233 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 234 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 235 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 237 Acknowledgment 239 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 240 Internet Society.