idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-00.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 (2024-04-20) 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. == 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 is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 50 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 326 has weird spacing: '... itself as lo...' -- 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 (September 1995) is 10445 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) == Missing Reference: '10' is mentioned on line 1085, but not defined == Missing Reference: '6' is mentioned on line 1258, but not defined == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 1249, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1311 (ref. '4') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1543 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 2223) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group S. Bradner 2 Internet-Draft Harvard University 3 Editor 4 September 1995 6 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 8 a proposed revision of part of RFC 1602 10 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 15 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 16 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 24 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 25 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 26 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 27 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 28 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 30 Abstract 31 Table of Contents 33 Status of this Memo.................................................1 34 Abstract............................................................1 35 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................... 36 1.1 Internet Standards............................................ 37 1.2 The Internet Standards Process................................ 38 1.3 Organization of This Document................................. 39 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.......................... 40 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................. 41 2.2 Internet-Drafts............................................... 42 2.3 Notices and Record Keeping.................................... 43 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................. 44 3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................. 45 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................. 46 3.3 Requirement Levels............................................ 47 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK..................................... 48 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels............................... 49 4.1.1 Proposed Standard......................................... 50 4.1.2 Draft Standard............................................ 51 4.1.3 Internet Standard......................................... 52 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels........................... 53 4.2.1 Experimental.............................................. 54 4.2.2 Informational............................................. 55 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs........ 56 4.2.4 Historic.................................................. 57 5. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS................................... 58 5.1 Standards Actions............................................. 59 5.1.1 Initiation of Action...................................... 60 5.1.2 IESG Review and Approval.................................. 61 5.1.3 Publication............................................... 62 5.2 Entering the Standards Track.................................. 63 5.3 Advancing in the Standards Track.............................. 64 5.4 Revising a Standard........................................... 65 5.5 Retiring a Standard........................................... 66 5.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals............................... 67 6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs................................. 68 6.1 BCP Review Process............................................ 69 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS............................ 70 8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................... 71 8.1. General Policy............................................... 72 8.2 Confidentiality Obligations.................................. 73 8.3. Rights and Permissions....................................... 74 8.3.1. All Contributions......................................... 75 8.4.2. Standards Track Documents................................. 76 8.4.3 Determination of Reasonable and 77 Non-discriminatory Terms.................................. 78 8.5. Notices...................................................... 80 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................. 81 10. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................... 82 11. REFERENCES....................................................... 83 12 .AUTHORS' ADDRESS................................................. 85 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS..................................... 87 1. INTRODUCTION 89 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 90 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The 91 Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society 92 that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by 93 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering 94 Steering Group. 96 1.1 Internet Standards 98 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 99 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 100 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 101 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 102 isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which are 103 not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards. 105 The Internet standards process described in this document is 106 concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are 107 used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the 108 TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or 109 standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet 110 standards process may apply only to the application of the protocol 111 or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the 112 protocol itself. 114 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 115 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 116 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 117 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 118 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 120 1.2 The Internet Standards Process 122 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 123 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 124 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 125 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 126 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 127 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 128 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 129 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of 130 establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty 131 of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the 132 Internet community. 134 The goals of the Internet standards process are: 135 o technical excellence; 136 o prior implementation and testing; 137 o clear, short, and easily understandable documentation; 138 o openness and fairness; and 139 o timeliness. 141 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 142 open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to 143 be flexible. 145 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 146 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet 147 Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and 148 comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the 149 standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed 150 and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic 151 mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide 152 on-line directories. 154 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 155 generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification 156 must be implemented and tested for correct operation and 157 interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in 158 increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as 159 an Internet Standard. 161 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to 162 the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 163 standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to 164 be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 166 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 167 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 168 parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the 169 other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 170 demands timely development of standards. The Internet standards 171 process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process 172 is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing 173 technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, 174 or openness and fairness. 176 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, 177 an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 178 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users 179 of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and 180 services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution 181 as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 183 The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 184 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 185 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 187 1.3 Organization of This Document 189 Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet 190 standards process, and specifies the requirements for record-keeping 191 and public access to information. Section 3 describes the Internet 192 standards track. Section 4 describes the types of Internet standard 193 specification. Section 5 describes the process and rules for Internet 194 standardization. Section 6 specifies the way in which externally- 195 sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by 196 other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled within the Internet 197 standards process. Section 7 presents the rules that are required to 198 protect intellectual property rights in the context of the 199 development and use of Internet Standards. Section 8 contains a list 200 of numbered references. 202 Appendix A contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. 204 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 206 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 208 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 209 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 210 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 211 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 212 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 213 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other 214 Internet document-retrieval systems. 216 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 217 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 218 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 219 topics, from early discussion of new research concepts to status 220 memos about the Internet. RFC publication direct responsibility of 221 the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the IAB. 223 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. 224 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 225 in PostScript(R). The PostScript(R) version of an RFC may contain 226 material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the 227 ASCII version, and it may be formatted differently. 229 ********************************************************* 230 * * 231 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 232 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 233 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 234 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 235 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 236 * * 237 ********************************************************* 239 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 240 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 241 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 242 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 243 specification (see section 3). 245 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 246 subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been 247 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 248 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 249 series. 251 Some RFCs describe best current practices for the Internet community 252 These RFCs form the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the 253 RFC series. [7] When a specification has been adopted as a BCP, it 254 is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number 255 and its place in the RFC series. 257 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 258 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 259 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 260 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 261 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 262 of the RFC editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 264 ******************************************************** 265 * * 266 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 267 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 268 * standards track documents reach the level of * 269 * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * 270 * which describe current practices have been given * 271 * the review and approval to become BCPs. * 272 * * 273 ******************************************************** 275 2.2 Internet-Drafts 277 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 278 document are made available for informal review and comment by 279 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 280 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 281 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 282 the process of review and revision. 284 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 285 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 286 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 287 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 288 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 289 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 291 An Internet-Draft may be related to the activity of a specific IETF 292 working group or be an unrelated contribution. To assist in the 293 locating of all the Internet-Drafts relevant to a particular working 294 group the Internet-Drafts archive is organized into separate 295 subdirectories, one for each active working group and an additional 296 one for unrelated contributions. Internet-Drafts submitted as 297 relevant to a particular working group are placed into the directory 298 named for the working group. 300 Internet-Drafts can also be seen as 1/ products of, or adoptions of, 301 a working group, i.e., the working group wishes to endorse the 302 contents of the Internet-Draft, or, 2/ as submissions for 303 consideration by a working group. These are differentiated in the 304 archive by the use of the working group name as the first part of the 305 filename in the first case and the use of the 1st author's name in 306 the second case. The appropriate designation is the discretion 307 working group chair(s). 309 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; 310 specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in 311 the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 312 subject to change or removal at any time. 314 ******************************************************** 315 * * 316 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 317 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 318 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 319 * with an Internet-Draft. * 320 * * 321 ******************************************************** 323 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 324 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 325 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 326 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long 327 as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 328 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 329 the "Work in Progress". 331 2.3 Notices and Record Keeping 333 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of 334 Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a 335 publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to 336 the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part 337 of the Internet standards process. For purposes of this section, the 338 organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet 339 Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF working 340 groups, and the Internet Society board of trustees. 342 For IETF and working group meetings announcements shall be made by 343 electronic mail to the IETF mailing list and shall be made 344 sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested 345 parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain 346 (or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to 347 support the participation of any interested individual. In the case 348 of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda 349 that specifies the standards-related issues that will be discussed. 351 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 352 shall include at least the following: 354 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 355 to a charter); 356 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 357 o working group electronic mail mailing lists pertain to the; and 358 o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from 359 participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related 360 activity. 362 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet standards 363 process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 364 responsibility of the Executive Director of the IETF. The entire 365 record is available to any interested party upon request to the 366 Executive Director. Internet drafts that have been removed (for any 367 reason) from the internet-drafts directories shall be archived by the 368 IETF Secretariat for the sole purpose of preserving an historical 369 record of Internet standards activity and thus are not retrievable 370 except in special circumstances. 372 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 374 Specifications subject to the Internet standards process fall into 375 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and 376 Applicability Statement (AS). 378 3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 380 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 381 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 382 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 383 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 384 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 385 by reference to other documents (which may or may not be Internet 386 Standards). 388 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 389 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently 390 specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that 391 effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use 392 within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the 393 particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different 394 system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. 396 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 398 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 399 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 400 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 401 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 6. 403 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 404 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 405 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 406 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 407 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 408 3.3). 410 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 411 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 412 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 413 based database servers. 415 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 416 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 417 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 419 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 420 than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 5.1). 421 For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS 422 at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at 423 the Standard level. 425 An AS may refer to a TS that is either a standards-track 426 specification or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity 427 level of "Experimental" or "Historic" (see section 4.2). 429 3.3 Requirement Levels 431 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 432 of the TSs to which it refers: 434 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 435 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 436 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 437 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 439 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 440 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally 441 accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain 442 of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 443 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 444 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 445 justified by some special circumstance. 447 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 448 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 449 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 450 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user 451 may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. 453 As noted in section 3.2, there are TSs that are not in the 454 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 455 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 456 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 457 these TSs: 459 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use 460 only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 461 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally 462 be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 464 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 465 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because 466 of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 467 status. 469 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 470 standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related 471 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 472 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 473 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 474 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 475 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 476 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 477 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 478 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 479 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 481 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general requirement 482 level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. 483 This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more detailed 484 descriptions of the requirement levels of particular protocols and of 485 individual features of the protocols will be found in appropriate 486 ASs. 488 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 490 Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve 491 through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". 492 These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and 493 "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in 494 which specifications move along the standards track is described in 495 section 5. 497 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, 498 further evolution often occurs based on experience and the 499 recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of 500 Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet 501 Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to 502 indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of 503 maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other 504 specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. 506 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 508 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 509 and acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages 510 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 512 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 513 characteristics of specifications at each level. 515 4.1.1 Proposed Standard 517 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 518 Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a 519 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" 520 level (see section 5). 522 A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved 523 known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 524 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 525 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 526 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 527 before it advances. 529 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 530 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 531 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will 532 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard 533 designation. 535 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 536 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that 537 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 538 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 539 Internet. Typically, such a specification will be published 540 initially with Experimental status (see section 4.2.1), and moved to 541 the standards track only after sufficient implementation or 542 operational experience has been obtained. 544 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with 545 respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may 546 waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance 547 to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and 548 necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 550 Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature 551 specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain 552 experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. 553 However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if 554 problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying 555 implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive 556 customer base is not recommended. 558 4.1.2 Draft Standard 559 A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable 560 implementations from different code bases, and for which sufficient 561 successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated 562 to the "Draft Standard" level. If patented or otherwise controlled 563 technology is required for implementation, the separate 564 implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the 565 licensing process. This is a major advance in status, indicating a 566 strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful. 568 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 569 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 570 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 571 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 572 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 573 level only if those options or features are removed. 575 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 576 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 577 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or 578 more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 579 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate 580 unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production 581 environments. 583 A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, 584 and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems 585 encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to 586 deploy implementations of draft standards into the customer base. 588 4.1.3 Internet Standard 590 A specification for which significant implementation and successful 591 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the 592 Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be 593 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of 594 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 595 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 596 community. 598 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 600 Not every TS or AS is on the standards track. A TS may not be 601 intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for 602 eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 603 track. A TS or AS may have been superseded by a more recent Internet 604 Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 606 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 607 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 608 "Informational", or "Historic". There are no time limits associated 609 with these non-standards track labels, and the documents bearing 610 these labels are not Internet Standards in any sense. 612 4.2.1 Experimental 614 The "Experimental" designation on a TS typically denotes a 615 specification that is part of some research or development effort. 616 Such a specification is published for the general information of the 617 Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work, 618 subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that 619 there has been adequate coordination with the standards process (see 620 below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an 621 organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the 622 IRTF), an IETF working group, or it may be an individual 623 contribution. 625 4.2.2 Informational 627 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 628 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 629 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 630 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 631 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 632 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 633 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 634 (see below). 636 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 637 community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards 638 process by any of the provisions of section 6 may be published as 639 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 640 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 642 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 644 Unless they are the result of IETF working group action, documents 645 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 646 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor . The RFC Editor will 647 publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already 648 been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts 649 the filename will include "-rfced-". The RFC Editor will wait two 650 weeks after this publication for comments before proceeding further. 651 The RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning 652 the editorial suitability of a document for publication with 653 Experimental or Informational status, and may refuse to publish a 654 document which, in the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, falls below 655 the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs. 657 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 658 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet standards 659 process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 660 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 661 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 662 may be related to, or of interest to, the IETF community. The IESG 663 shall review such a referred document within a reasonable period of 664 time, and recommend either that it be published as originally 665 submitted or referred to the IETF as a contribution to the Internet 666 standards process. 668 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 669 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 670 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 671 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 672 established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an 673 Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG 674 may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or 675 immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to 676 make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. 678 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 679 working groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 680 the process described in section 5.1.1. 682 4.2.4 Historic 684 A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent specification or 685 is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the 686 "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the word should be 687 "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is 688 historical.) 690 5. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 692 The mechanics of the Internet standards process involve decisions of 693 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 694 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 695 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 696 objective criteria (described below and in section 5) are available 697 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 698 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 699 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 700 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 701 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 702 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 703 component of the decision-making process. 705 5.1 Standards Actions 707 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 708 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 709 be approved by the IESG. 711 5.1.1 Initiation of Action 713 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation to the 714 appropriate IETF Area Director or to the IESG as a whole by the 715 individual or group that is responsible for the specification 716 (usually an IETF Working Group). 718 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 719 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 720 section 2.2), by sending the document in an electronic mail message 721 to the Internet-Drafts address at the IETF Secretariat. It shall 722 remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less than two 723 weeks, that permits useful community review, after which it may be 724 submitted to the IESG with a recommendation for action by sending an 725 electronic mail message to the Executive Director of the IETF, with a 726 copy to the relevant Area Director if any, specifying the name of the 727 document and the recommended action. 729 5.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 731 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 732 it according to section 5.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 733 the recommended action (see sections 5.3 and 5.4), and shall in 734 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 735 of the specification comports with that expected for the maturity 736 level to which the specification is recommended. 738 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 739 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 740 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 741 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 742 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 743 specification. Such a review shall be commissioned whenever the 744 circumstances surrounding a recommended standards action are 745 considered by the IESG to require a broader basis than is normally 746 available from the IESG itself for agreement within the Internet 747 community that the specification is ready for advancement. The IESG 748 shall communicate the findings of any such review to the IETF. 750 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 751 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 752 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 753 via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list. Comments on a Last- 754 Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent to the IESG 755 with a copy to Executive Director of the IETF. 757 In a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after issuing the 758 Last-Call notification to the IETF mailing list, the IESG shall make 759 its final determination of whether or not to approve the standards 760 action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via electronic mail 761 to the IETF mailing list. In those cases in which the IESG believes 762 that the community interest would be served by allowing more time for 763 comment, it may decide to explicitly lengthen the Last-Call period. 764 In those cases in which the proposed standards action involves a 765 document for which no corresponding IETF working group is currently 766 active, the Last-Call period shall be no shorter than four weeks. 768 5.1.3 Publication 770 Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC 771 Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC. The specification 772 shall at that point be removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 774 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 775 appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter. This shall 776 constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 777 actions. In addition, the IESG shall publish a monthly summary of 778 standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Monthly 779 Report. 781 Finally, the RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet 782 Official Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all 783 Internet protocol and service specifications, both within and outside 784 the standards track. 786 5.2 Entering the Standards Track 788 A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may 789 originate from: 791 (a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group), 793 (b) independent activity by individuals, or 795 (c) an external organization. 797 Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that enter 798 the standards track. In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly 799 integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it 800 might be offered for standardization without prior IETF involvement. 801 In most cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took 802 place outside of an IETF Working Group will be submitted to an 803 appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement. If 804 necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created. 806 For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated with 807 existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to afford 808 adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability of the 809 specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all technical 810 and usage questions, additional independent review may be necessary. 811 Such reviews may be done within a Working Group context, or by an ad 812 hoc review committee established specifically for that purpose. Ad 813 hoc review committees may also be convened in other circumstances 814 when the nature of review required is too small to require the 815 formality of Working Group creation. It is the responsibility of the 816 appropriate IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of 817 an external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted. 819 5.3 Advancing in the Standards Track 821 The procedure described in section 5.1 is followed for each action 822 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 823 track. 825 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 826 least six (6) months. 828 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least 829 four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, 830 whichever comes later. 832 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 833 community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 834 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 835 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 836 publication, the date of IESG approval of the action. 838 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 839 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall 840 determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 841 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 842 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant 843 revision may require that the specification accumulate more 844 experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, 845 if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG 846 may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- 847 entering the standards track at the beginning. 849 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 850 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 851 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 852 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 853 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 854 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 855 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 856 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 857 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 858 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 859 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 860 time-at-level clock. 862 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 863 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 864 twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 865 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of 866 the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the 867 usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG 868 shall approve termination or continuation of the development, at the 869 same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification at the 870 same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This decision 871 shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the IETF 872 mailing list to allow the Internet community an opportunity to 873 comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a legitimate and 874 active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an administrative 875 mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 877 5.4 Revising a Standard 879 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 880 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 881 completely new specification. (Sections 5.1 and 5.3) Once the new 882 version has reached the Standard level, it will usually replace the 883 previous version, which will move to Historic status. However, in 884 some cases both versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor 885 the requirements of an installed base. In this situation, the 886 relationship between the previous and the new versions must be 887 explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another 888 appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see section 889 3.2). 891 5.5 Retiring a Standard 893 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 894 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 895 or more existing Internet Standards for the same function should be 896 retired. In this case, the IESG shall approve a change of status of 897 the superseded specification(s) from Standard to Historic. This 898 recommendation shall be issued with the same Last-Call and 899 notification procedures used for any other standards action. 901 5.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 903 IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which 904 sometimes requires difficult compromises between or among different 905 technical proposals. However, there are times when even the most 906 reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve 907 the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved 908 by a process of open review and discussion. This section specifies 909 the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Internet standards 910 issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes whereby 911 IETF Working Groups and other Internet standards process participants 912 ordinarily reach consensus. 914 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 915 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 916 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 917 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 918 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 919 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 920 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 921 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 922 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 923 the same process of review. 925 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 926 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 927 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 928 Group as a whole) in the discussion. If the disagreement cannot be 929 resolved in this way, it shall be brought to the attention of the 930 Area Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is 931 chartered. The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the 932 dispute. If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area 933 Director(s) the matter may be brought before the IESG as a whole. In 934 all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, and 935 the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must be 936 accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 938 A person who disagrees with an IESG decision should first discuss the 939 matter with the IESG chair, who may involve other members of the 940 IESG, or the whole IESG, in the discussion. 942 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 943 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 944 decision to the IAB by sending notice of such appeal to the IAB 945 electronic mail list. The IAB's review of the dispute shall be 946 informed by the findings of the IESG, by any additional 947 representation that the original petitioner(s) or others wish to make 948 in response to the IESG's findings, and by its own investigation of 949 the circumstances and the claims made by all parties. The IAB shall 950 make and announce its decision within a reasonable period of time. 952 [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not 953 establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered 954 "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet standards process places a 955 premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately 956 foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of 957 a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 958 reached.] 960 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 961 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 962 respect to all questions of technical merit. 964 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 965 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 966 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 967 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet standards process. 968 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 969 Trustees, by formal notice to the ISOC electronic mail list. The 970 President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge such an appeal 971 within two weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the 972 petitioner of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the 973 appeal (which shall be completed within a reasonable period of time). 974 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 975 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 977 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 978 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 979 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 980 their decision. 982 6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 984 Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical 985 specifications for hardware and software required for computer 986 communication across interconnected networks. The Internet itself is 987 composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, 988 with diverse goals and rules. However, good user service requires 989 that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some 990 common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines 991 are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, 992 their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. 994 6.1 BCP Review Process 996 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 997 is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing review process 998 applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF announcement mailing list. 999 However, once the IESG has approved the document, the process ends 1000 and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed as 1001 having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and cannot 1002 become an official Internet Standard. 1004 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 1005 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 5.1, and 5.5 of this 1006 document. It is also under the restrictions of section 5.2 and the 1007 process may be appealed according to the procedures in section 5.6. 1009 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1011 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1012 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1013 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1014 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1015 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1016 specifications. 1018 There are two categories of external specifications: 1020 (1) Open Standards 1022 Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as 1023 ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, develop a variety of protocol and 1024 service specifications that are similar to Technical 1025 Specifications defined here. National and international groups 1026 also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to 1027 Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation- 1028 specific detail concerned with the practical application of their 1029 standards. All of these are considered to be "open external 1030 standards" for the purposes of the Internet standards process. 1032 (2) Vendor Specifications 1034 A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely used 1035 in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if it 1036 were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally 1037 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 1038 controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it. 1040 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1041 Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an 1042 "Internet version" of an existing external specification unless an 1043 explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However, 1044 there are several ways in which an external specification that is 1045 important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be 1046 adopted for Internet use. 1048 (a) Incorporation of an Open Standard 1050 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1051 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1052 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" 1053 [2]. The reference must be to a specific version of the external 1054 standard, e.g., by publication date or by edition number, 1055 according to the prevailing convention of the organization that is 1056 responsible for the specification. Whenever possible, the 1057 referenced specification shall be available online. 1059 (b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification 1061 Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference 1062 to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the vendor- 1063 proprietary specification is not widely and readily available, the 1064 IESG may request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1066 For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within 1067 the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the 1068 requirements of section 8, and the specification shall be made 1069 available online. 1071 The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary 1072 specification over the technically equivalent and competing 1073 specification(s) of other vendors by making any incorporated 1074 vendor specification "required" or "recommended". 1076 (c) Assumption 1078 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1079 develop it into an Internet TS or AS. This is acceptable only if 1080 (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in 1081 compliance with the requirements of section 8, and (2) change 1082 control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the 1083 specification. Sample text illustrating the way in which a vendor 1084 might convey change control to the Internet Society is contained 1085 in [10]. 1087 8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1089 8.1. General Policy 1091 In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 1092 intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at 1093 large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 1095 8.2 Confidentiality Obligations 1097 No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 1098 or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part 1099 of the Internet standards process, and there must be no assumption of 1100 any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. 1102 8.3. Rights and Permissions 1104 In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in 1105 various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the 1106 dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand 1107 any encumbrances relating to the contributions. 1109 8.3.1. All Contributions 1111 By submission of a contribution a contributor is deemed to agree to 1112 the following terms and conditions: 1114 l. Contributor grants a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, 1115 world-wide right and license under any copyrights to publish and 1116 distribute in any way the contribution, and to develop derivative 1117 works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the 1118 contribution, and that such derivative works will inherit the 1119 right and license of the original contribution. 1121 2. The contributor acknowledges that the IETF has no duty to publish 1122 or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution. 1124 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and 1125 address(s) of the contributor as well as other persons who are 1126 named as contributors. 1128 4. The contributor represents that there no limits to the 1129 contributor's ability to make the grants and acknowledgments above 1130 that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. 1132 8.4.2. Standards Track Documents 1134 (A) The IESG shall not approve any TS, or advance any TS along the 1135 standards track which can be practiced only by using technology 1136 that is subject to known patents or patent applications, or other 1137 proprietary rights, except with the prior written assurance of the 1138 claimer of such rights that upon approval by the IESG of the 1139 relevant Internet standards track TS(s), any party will be able to 1140 obtain the right to implement and use the technology or works 1141 under specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. 1143 (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1144 existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 1145 copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the 1146 fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no 1147 position on the validity or scope of any such rights. 1149 8.4.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 1151 The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance 1152 of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a 1153 technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the 1154 normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to 1155 verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated 1156 implementations of the standard that are required to advance from 1157 Proposed to Draft have been produced by different vendors or if the 1158 "significant implementation and successful operational experience" 1159 required to advance from Draft to full Standard has been achieved the 1160 assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, 1161 non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the 1162 Last-Call period. 1164 8.5. Notices 1166 (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: 1168 "The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any 1169 claimed encumbrances to the implementation or use of the 1170 technology described in this document, nor that it has made any 1171 effort to identify any such encumbrances. For further 1172 information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in 1173 standards and standards-related documentation, see RFC-1602bis, 1174 dated in the future. Copies of all claims of encumbrances 1175 submitted to the IETF for posting and copies of all statements 1176 of the ability to obtain the right to implement and use the 1177 technology under specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory 1178 terms that have been received by the IETF referring to this 1179 technology may be found in the "rights" subdirectory in the RFC 1180 archives." 1182 (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1183 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any 1184 encumbrances pertaining to Internet Standards. For this purpose, 1185 each standards document shall include the following invitation: 1187 "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its 1188 attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or 1189 other proprietary rights which purport to cover technology that 1190 may be required to practice this standard. Please address the 1191 information to the Executive Director of the Internet 1192 Engineering Task Force." 1194 (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 1195 in all ISOC standards-related documentation: 1197 Copyright (year) The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 1198 This document may be copied and furnished to others without 1199 restriction of any kind provided the document is not modified 1200 in any way, such as by removing this copyright notice or 1201 references to The Internet Society or other Internet 1202 organizations. 1204 The document may be modified as needed for the purpose of 1205 developing Internet standards provided this notice is (1) 1206 included in the modified document without change and (2) the 1207 person or organization making the modifications clearly 1208 identifies, within the modified document, the changes that have 1209 been made and who made them. 1211 The permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 1212 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 1214 This document is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET 1215 SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 1216 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD 1217 PARTY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR 1218 FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1220 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1222 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1223 the documents defining the IETF standards process over the years. 1224 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1225 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1226 Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill 1227 Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, 1228 to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, 1229 and to Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert and Dock Holleman for 1230 their reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described 1231 herein. 1233 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1234 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1235 incarnations of the POISED working group. 1237 10. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1239 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1241 12. REFERENCES 1243 [1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 1244 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994. 1246 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1247 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1249 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 1250 USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992. 1252 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1253 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 1255 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, 1256 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. 1258 ti 3 [6] Postel, J., T. Li, and Y. Rekhter "Best Current 1259 Practices, RFC 1818, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Cisco 1260 Systems, August 1995. 1262 [7] foo, "Standard Form for Conveyance of Change Control to the 1263 Internet Society", RFC xxxx. 1265 12 ..AUTHORS' ADDRESS 1267 Scott O. Bradner Harvard University Holyoke Center, Room 813 1268 1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge, MA 02138 USA +1 617 495 3864 1270 sob@harvard.edu 1272 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1274 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1275 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1276 AS: Applicability Statement 1277 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1278 ITU-TS: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN 1279 treaty organization; ITU-TS was formerly called CCITT. 1280 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1281 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1282 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1283 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1284 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1285 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1286 IP: Internet Protocol 1287 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1288 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1289 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1290 ISOC: Internet Society 1291 MIB: Management Information Base 1292 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1293 RFC: Request for Comments 1294 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1295 TS: Technical Specification