idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-03.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 (2024-03-29) 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. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 335 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 (February 1996) is 10270 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: '3' is defined on line 1431, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 1440, 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1818 (ref. '6') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1726 (ref. '7') Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Bradner 3 Internet-Draft Harvard University 4 Editor 5 February 1996 7 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 9 a proposed revision of part of RFC 1602 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 16 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 17 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 18 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 25 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 26 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 27 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 28 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 29 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 31 Abstract 33 This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for 34 the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the 35 stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a 36 document between stages and the types of documents used during this 37 process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and 38 copyright issues associated with the standards process. 40 Table of Contents 42 Status of this Memo.................................................1 43 Abstract............................................................1 44 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................3 45 1.1 Internet Standards...........................................3 46 1.2 The Internet Standards Process...............................4 47 1.3 Organization of This Document................................5 48 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................6 49 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................6 50 2.2 Internet-Drafts..............................................7 51 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................8 52 3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................8 53 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................8 54 3.3 Requirement Levels...........................................9 55 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................10 56 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................11 57 4.1.1 Proposed Standard.......................................11 58 4.1.2 Draft Standard..........................................12 59 4.1.3 Internet Standard.......................................12 60 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................12 61 4.2.1 Experimental............................................13 62 4.2.2 Informational...........................................13 63 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......13 64 4.2.4 Historic................................................14 65 5. BEST CURRENT THINKING ABOUT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs................14 66 5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................15 67 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................16 68 6.1 Standards Actions...........................................16 69 6.1.1 Initiation of Action....................................16 70 6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval................................17 71 6.1.3 Publication.............................................18 72 6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track............................18 73 6.3 Revising a Standard.........................................19 74 6.4 Retiring a Standard.........................................19 75 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals.............................20 76 6.5.1 Working Group disputes...................................20 77 6.5.2 Process Failures.........................................21 78 6.5.3 Questions of applicable procedure........................21 79 6.5.4 Appeals procedure........................................22 80 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................22 81 7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................23 82 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................23 83 7.1.2 Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................23 84 7.1.3 Assumption..............................................24 85 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................24 86 9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................25 87 9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................25 88 9.2 Exclusions...................................................26 89 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................26 90 10.1. General Policy............................................26 91 10.2 Confidentiality Obligations...............................27 92 10.3. Rights and Permissions....................................27 93 10.3.1. All Contributions......................................27 94 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents..............................28 95 10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and 96 Non-discriminatory Terms................................28 97 10.4. Notices...................................................29 98 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................30 99 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................30 100 13. REFERENCES.....................................................30 101 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................31 102 15 .AUTHORS' ADDRESS...............................................32 104 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................32 106 1. INTRODUCTION 108 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 109 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The 110 Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society 111 that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by 112 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering 113 Steering Group (IESG). 115 1.1 Internet Standards 117 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 118 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 119 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 120 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 121 isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which are 122 not connected to the global Internet but use the Internet Standards. 124 The Internet standards process described in this document is 125 concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are 126 used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the 127 TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or 128 standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet 129 standards process normally applies to the application of the protocol 130 or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the 131 protocol itself. 133 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 134 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 135 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 136 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 137 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 139 1.2 The Internet Standards Process 141 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 142 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 143 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 144 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 145 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 146 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 147 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 148 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of 149 establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty 150 of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the 151 Internet community. 153 The goals of the Internet standards process are: 154 o technical excellence; 155 o prior implementation and testing; 156 o clear, concise, and easily understandable documentation; 157 o openness and fairness; and 158 o timeliness. 160 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 161 open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to 162 be flexible. 164 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 165 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet 166 Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and 167 comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the 168 standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed 169 and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic 170 mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide 171 on-line directories. 173 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 174 generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification 175 must be implemented and tested for correct operation and 176 interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in 177 increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as 178 an Internet Standard. 180 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to 181 the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 182 standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to 183 be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 185 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 186 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 187 parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the 188 other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 189 demands timely development of standards. The Internet standards 190 process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process 191 is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing 192 technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, 193 or openness and fairness. 195 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, 196 an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 197 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users 198 of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and 199 services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution 200 as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 202 The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 203 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 204 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 206 1.3 Organization of This Document 208 Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet 209 standards process, and specifies the requirements for record-keeping 210 and public access to information. Section 3 describes the types of 211 Internet standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet 212 standards specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current 213 Practice RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for 214 Internet standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which 215 externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and 216 controlled by other standards bodies or by others, are handled within 217 the Internet standards process. Section 8 describes the requirements 218 for notices and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process 219 to allow one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this 220 document Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect 221 intellectual property rights in the context of the development and 222 use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of 223 some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12 224 notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document. 225 Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14 226 contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document. 227 Section 15 lists the authors' email and postal addresses. Appendix A 228 contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. 230 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 232 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 234 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 235 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 236 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 237 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 238 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 239 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other 240 Internet document-retrieval systems. 242 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 243 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 244 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 245 topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of 246 new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC 247 publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the 248 general direction of the IAB. 250 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. 251 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 252 in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material 253 (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII 254 version, and it may be formatted differently. 256 ********************************************************* 257 * * 258 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 259 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 260 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 261 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 262 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 263 * * 264 ********************************************************* 266 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 267 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 268 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 269 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 270 specification (see section 3). 272 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 273 subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been 274 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 275 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 276 series. (see section 4.1.3) 277 Some RFCs describe the best current thinking about practices in the 278 Internet community These RFCs form the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) 279 subseries of the RFC series. [7] When a specification has been 280 adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it 281 keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series. (see section 5) 283 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 284 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 285 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 286 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 287 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 288 of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 290 ******************************************************** 291 * * 292 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 293 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 294 * standards track documents reach the level of * 295 * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * 296 * which describe current practices have been given * 297 * the review and approval to become BCPs. See * 298 * RFC-1796 [7] for further information. * 299 * * 300 ******************************************************** 302 2.2 Internet-Drafts 304 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 305 document are made available for informal review and comment by 306 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 307 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 308 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 309 the process of review and revision. 311 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 312 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 313 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 314 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 315 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 316 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 318 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; 319 specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in 320 the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 321 subject to change or removal at any time. 323 ******************************************************** 324 * * 325 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 326 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 327 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 328 * with an Internet-Draft. * 329 * * 330 ******************************************************** 332 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 333 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 334 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 335 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long 336 as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 337 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 338 the "Work in Progress". 340 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 342 Specifications subject to the Internet standards process fall into 343 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and 344 Applicability Statement (AS). 346 3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 348 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 349 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 350 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 351 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 352 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 353 by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet 354 Standards). 356 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 357 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently 358 specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that 359 effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use 360 within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the 361 particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different 362 system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. 364 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 366 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 367 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 368 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 369 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7. 371 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 372 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 373 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 374 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 375 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 376 3.3). 378 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 379 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 380 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 381 based database servers. 383 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 384 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 385 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 387 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 388 than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1). 389 For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS 390 at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at 391 the Standard level. 393 3.3 Requirement Levels 395 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 396 of the TSs to which it refers: 398 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 399 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 400 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 401 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 403 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 404 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally 405 accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain 406 of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 407 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 408 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 409 justified by some special circumstance. 411 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 412 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 413 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 414 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user 415 may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. 417 As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the 418 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 419 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 420 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 421 these TSs: 423 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use 424 only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 425 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally 426 be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 428 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 429 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because 430 of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 431 status. 433 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 434 standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related 435 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 436 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 437 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 438 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 439 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 440 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 441 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 442 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 443 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 445 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general 446 requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this 447 section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more 448 detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular 449 protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found 450 in appropriate ASs. 452 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 454 Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve 455 through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". 456 These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and 457 "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in 458 which specifications move along the standards track is described in 459 section 6. 461 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, 462 further evolution often occurs based on experience and the 463 recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of 464 Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet 465 Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to 466 indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of 467 maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other 468 specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. 470 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 472 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 473 and acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages 474 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 476 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 477 characteristics of specifications at each level. 479 4.1.1 Proposed Standard 481 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 482 Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a 483 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" 484 level. 486 A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved 487 known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 488 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 489 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 490 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 491 before it advances. 493 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 494 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 495 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will 496 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard 497 designation. 499 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 500 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that 501 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 502 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 503 Internet. 505 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with 506 respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may 507 waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance 508 to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and 509 necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 511 Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature 512 specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain 513 experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. 514 However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if 515 problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying 516 implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive 517 customer base is not recommended. 519 4.1.2 Draft Standard 521 A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable 522 implementations from different code bases have been developed, and 523 for which sufficient successful operational experience has been 524 obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the 525 purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be able to 526 interoperate over a data communications path. If patented or 527 otherwise controlled technology is required for implementation, the 528 separate implementations must also have resulted from separate 529 exercise of the licensing process. Elevation to Draft Standard is a 530 major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the 531 specification is mature and will be useful. 533 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 534 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 535 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 536 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 537 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 538 level only if those options or features are removed. 540 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 541 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 542 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or 543 more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 544 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate 545 unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production 546 environments. 548 A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, 549 and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems 550 encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to 551 deploy implementations of Draft Standards into the customer base. 553 4.1.3 Internet Standard 555 A specification for which significant implementation and successful 556 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the 557 Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be 558 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of 559 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 560 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 561 community. 563 A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a 564 number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. 566 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 567 Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification 568 may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended 569 for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 570 track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent 571 Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 573 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 574 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 575 "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels 576 are not Internet Standards in any sense. 578 4.2.1 Experimental 580 The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that 581 is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification 582 is published for the general information of the Internet technical 583 community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to 584 editorial considerations and to verification that there has been 585 adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An 586 Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet 587 research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working 588 Group, or it may be an individual contribution. 590 4.2.2 Informational 592 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 593 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 594 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 595 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 596 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 597 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 598 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 599 (see section 4.2.3). 601 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 602 community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards 603 process by any of the provisions of section 9 may be published as 604 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 605 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 607 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 609 Unless they are the result of IETF working group action, documents 610 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 611 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will 612 publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already 613 been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts 614 they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are 615 easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this 616 publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor 617 is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial 618 suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or 619 Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in 620 the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet 621 activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for 622 RFCs. 624 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 625 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet standards 626 process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 627 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 628 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 629 may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the 630 IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document 631 within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be 632 published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a 633 contribution to the Internet standards process. 635 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 636 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 637 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 638 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 639 established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an 640 Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG 641 may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or 642 immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to 643 make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. 645 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 646 working groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 647 the process described in section 6.1.1. 649 4.2.4 Historic 651 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 652 specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is 653 assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the 654 word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of 655 "Historic" is historical.) 657 5. BEST CURRENT THINKING ABOUT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 659 The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to 660 standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A 661 BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as 662 standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF 663 community can define and ratify the communities' best current 664 thinking on a statement of principle or on what is the best way to 665 perform some function. 667 Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with 668 the technical specifications for hardware and software required for 669 computer communication across interconnected networks. However, 670 since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great 671 variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user 672 service requires that the operators and administrators of the 673 Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. 674 While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style 675 from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process 676 for consensus building. 678 While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are 679 composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the 680 technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities 681 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders 682 in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an 683 outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to 684 raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a 685 statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their 686 thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly 687 structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into 688 the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the 689 community's view of that issue. 691 Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the 692 IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF standards 693 process and is published as a BCP. 695 5.1 BCP Review Process 697 Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs 698 are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage 699 standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and 700 immediate instantiation. 702 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 703 is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the 704 existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF 705 Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the 706 document, the process ends and the document is published. The 707 resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the 708 IETF. 710 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 711 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this 712 document. It is also under the restrictions of section 6.2 and the 713 process may be appealed according to the procedures in section 6.5. 715 Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived 716 at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. 717 Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger 718 Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable 719 for a content different from Informational RFCs. 721 A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been 722 approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while 723 retaining its RFC number(s). 725 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 727 The mechanics of the Internet standards process involve decisions of 728 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 729 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 730 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 731 objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available 732 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 733 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 734 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 735 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 736 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 737 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 738 component of the decision-making process. 740 6.1 Standards Actions 742 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 743 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 744 be approved by the IESG. 746 6.1.1 Initiation of Action 748 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 749 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 750 section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC. 751 It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less 752 than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a 753 recommendation for action may be initiated. 755 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF 756 Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, 757 copied to the IETF Secretary or, in the case of a specification not 758 associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to 759 the IESG. 761 6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 763 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 764 it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 765 the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in 766 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 767 of the specification is consistent with that expected for the 768 maturity level to which the specification is recommended. 770 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 771 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 772 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 773 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 774 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 775 specification. 777 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 778 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 779 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 780 via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a 781 Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent should be 782 sent as directed in the Last-Call announcement. 784 The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in 785 those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by 786 an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no 787 shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community 788 interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may 789 decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a 790 current Last-Call period. 792 The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the 793 specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to 794 consider the specification for publication in a different category 795 than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- 796 Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. 797 The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based 798 on the response to a Last-Call. In addition, the IESG may decide to 799 recommend the formation of a new Working Group in the case of 800 significant controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification 801 not originating from an IETF Working Group. 803 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 804 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 805 the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 806 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. 808 6.1.3 Publication 810 If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC 811 Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the 812 specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be 813 removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 815 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 816 appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This 817 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 818 actions. 820 The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official 821 Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet 822 protocol and service specifications. 824 6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track 826 The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action 827 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 828 track. 830 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 831 least six (6) months. 833 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least 834 four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, 835 whichever comes later. 837 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 838 community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 839 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 840 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 841 publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the 842 action. 844 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 845 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall 846 determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 847 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 848 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant 849 revision may require that the specification accumulate more 850 experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, 851 if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG 852 may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- 853 entering the standards track at the beginning. 855 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 856 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 857 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 858 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 859 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 860 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 861 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 862 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 863 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 864 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 865 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 866 time-at-level clock. 868 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 869 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 870 twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 871 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of 872 the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the 873 usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG 874 shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, 875 at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification 876 at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This 877 decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the 878 IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an 879 opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a 880 legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an 881 administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 883 6.3 Revising a Standard 885 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 886 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 887 completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the 888 Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which 889 will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both 890 versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements 891 of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between 892 the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the 893 text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an 894 Applicability Statement; see section 3.2). 896 6.4 Retiring a Standard 898 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 899 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 900 or more existing standards track specifications for the same function 901 should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other 902 reason that an existing standards track specification should be 903 retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old 904 specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued 905 with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any 906 other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can 907 originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other 908 interested party. 910 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 912 Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As 913 much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be 914 made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when 915 even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to 916 agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts 917 must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This 918 section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with 919 Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal 920 processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet standards 921 process participants ordinarily reach consensus. 923 6.5.1 Working Group disputes 925 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 926 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 927 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 928 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 929 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 930 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 931 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 932 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 933 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 934 the same process of review. 936 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 937 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 938 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 939 Group as a whole) in the discussion. 941 If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the 942 parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area 943 Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. 944 The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute. 946 If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of 947 the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The 948 IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a 949 manner of its own choosing. 951 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 952 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 953 decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and 954 attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing. 956 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 957 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 958 respect to all questions of technical merit. 960 6.5.2 Process Failures 962 This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to 963 ensure openness and fairness of the Internet standards process, and 964 the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the 965 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that 966 is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been 967 followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action 968 have been met. 970 In an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in 971 this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the 972 ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant 973 then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along 974 with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further 975 action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the 976 complaint to the IETF. 978 Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG 979 review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review 980 the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own 981 choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. 983 If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be 984 annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG 985 decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG, 986 or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, 987 however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which 988 only the IESG is empowered to make. 990 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 991 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. 993 6.5.3 Questions of applicable procedure 995 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 996 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 997 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 998 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet standards process. 999 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 1000 Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge 1001 such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of 1002 acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the 1003 Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the 1004 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on 1005 the outcome of its review. 1007 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 1008 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 1010 6.5.4 Appeals procedure 1012 All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the 1013 facts of the dispute. 1015 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 1016 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 1017 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 1018 their decision. 1020 In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, 1021 and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must 1022 be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 1024 [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not 1025 establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered 1026 "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet standards process places a 1027 premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately 1028 foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of 1029 a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 1030 reached.] 1032 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1034 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1035 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1036 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1037 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1038 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1039 specifications. 1041 There are two categories of external specifications: 1043 (1) Open Standards 1044 Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, 1045 ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service 1046 specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications 1047 defined here. National and international groups also publish 1048 "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability 1049 Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail 1050 concerned with the practical application of their standards. All 1051 of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the 1052 purposes of the Internet standards process. 1054 (2) Other Specifications 1056 Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used 1057 in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if 1058 they were a "standards". Such a specification is not generally 1059 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 1060 controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced 1061 it. 1063 7.1 Use of External Specifications 1065 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1066 Internet community will not standardize a specification that is 1067 simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification 1068 unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. 1069 However, there are several ways in which an external specification 1070 that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet 1071 may be adopted for Internet use. 1073 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard 1075 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1076 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1077 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" 1078 [2]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be 1079 available online. 1081 7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications 1083 Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference 1084 to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets 1085 the requirements of section 8. If the other proprietary 1086 specification is not widely and readily available, the IESG may 1087 request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1089 The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary 1090 specification over the technically equivalent and competing 1091 specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification 1092 "required" or "recommended". 1094 7.1.3 Assumption 1096 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1097 develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if 1098 (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in 1099 compliance with the requirements of section 9, and (2) change 1100 control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the 1101 specification for the specification or for specifications derived 1102 from the original specification. 1104 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING 1106 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval 1107 of Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain 1108 a publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it 1109 engages, to the extent that the activity represents the 1110 prosecution of any part of the Internet standards process. For 1111 purposes of this section, the organizations involved in the 1112 development and approval of Internet Standards includes the IETF, 1113 the IESG, the IAB, all IETF working groups, and the Internet 1114 Society Board of Trustees. 1116 For IETF and working group meetings announcements shall be made by 1117 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be 1118 made sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all 1119 interested parties to effectively participate. The announcement 1120 shall contain (or provide pointers to) all of the information that 1121 is necessary to support the participation of any interested 1122 individual. In the case of a meeting, for example, the 1123 announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards- 1124 related issues that will be discussed. 1126 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 1127 shall include at least the following: 1129 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 1130 to a charter); 1131 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 1132 o the archives of the working group electronic mail mailing lists; 1133 and 1134 o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from 1135 participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related 1136 activity. 1138 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet standards 1139 process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 1140 responsibility of the IESG Secretary except that each IETF working 1141 group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must 1142 make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and 1143 included in the archives. Internet drafts that have been removed 1144 (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts directories shall be 1145 archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole purpose of preserving 1146 an historical record of Internet standards activity and thus are not 1147 retrievable except in special circumstances. 1149 9. VARYING THE PROCESS 1151 This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which 1152 Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product 1153 of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section 1154 5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to 1155 be replaced. 1157 While, when published, this document represents the community's view 1158 of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be 1159 met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it 1160 cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to 1161 time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new 1162 version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are 1163 used for any other BCP. 1165 In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures 1166 leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be 1167 situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases 1168 it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described 1169 below. 1171 9.1 The Variance Procedure 1173 Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if 1174 no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc 1175 committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or 1176 advance it within, the standards track even though some of the 1177 requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG 1178 may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines 1179 that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to 1180 outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from 1181 noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising 1182 this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical 1183 merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the 1184 goals of the Internet standards process without granting a variance, 1185 (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral 1186 and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's 1187 ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In 1188 determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to 1189 limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document 1190 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it 1191 determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet 1192 community. 1194 The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the 1195 precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a 1196 variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including 1197 consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph. 1198 The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG 1199 shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to 1200 allow for community comment upon the proposal. 1202 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 1203 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 1204 the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 1205 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance 1206 is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request 1207 that it be published as a BCP. 1209 This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some 1210 provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes 1211 to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP 1212 process. 1214 The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process. 1216 9.2 Exclusions 1218 No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt 1219 any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or 1220 consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings 1221 and mailing list discussions. 1223 Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be 1224 subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3 1225 (first sentence), 6.5 and 9. 1227 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1229 10.1. General Policy 1231 In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 1232 intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at 1233 large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 1235 10.2 Confidentiality Obligations 1237 No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 1238 or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part 1239 of the Internet standards process, and there must be no assumption of 1240 any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. 1242 10.3. Rights and Permissions 1244 In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in 1245 various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the 1246 dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand 1247 any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions. 1249 10.3.1. All Contributions 1251 By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the 1252 contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions 1253 on his own behalf and/or on behalf of the organization he represents. 1254 Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the 1255 contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual 1256 submitter(s)represent that each other named contributor was made 1257 aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his 1258 own behalf and/or on behalf of any organization he may represent. 1260 l. Contributor grants a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, 1261 world-wide right and license to the ISOC under Contributor's 1262 copyrights to publish and distribute in any way the contribution, 1263 and to develop derivative works that are based on or incorporate 1264 all or part of the contribution, and that such derivative works 1265 will inherit the right and license of the original contribution. 1267 2. The contributor acknowledges that the IETF has no duty to publish 1268 or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution. 1270 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and 1271 address(s) of the contributor. 1273 4. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the 1274 contributor's ability to make the grants and acknowledgments above 1275 that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. 1277 5. The contributor represents that contributions and any derivative 1278 works properly acknowledge major contributors. 1280 By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet 1281 Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and 1282 free access to IETF documents for which license and right have 1283 been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this 1284 section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is 1285 perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its 1286 successors or assigns. 1288 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents 1290 (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary 1291 rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on 1292 the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the 1293 IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the 1294 document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or 1295 claimed rights. Where implementations are required before 1296 advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by 1297 statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with 1298 any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the 1299 purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification. 1300 (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1301 existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 1302 copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the 1303 fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no 1304 position on the validity or scope of any such rights. 1305 (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the 1306 IESG Secretary shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such 1307 rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG of the 1308 relevant Interment standards track specification(s), any party 1309 will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute 1310 the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing 1311 technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly 1312 specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working 1313 group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which 1314 the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IESG Secretary 1315 in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect 1316 advancement of a specification along the standards track, though 1317 the IESG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the 1318 obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be 1319 recorded by the IESG Secretary, and made available online. The 1320 IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in 1321 any RFC published containing the specification. 1323 10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 1325 The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance 1326 of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a 1327 technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the 1328 normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to 1329 verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated 1330 implementations of the standard that are required to advance from 1331 Proposed to Draft have been produced by different organizations or 1332 individuals or if the "significant implementation and successful 1333 operational experience" required to advance from Draft to full 1334 Standard has been achieved the assumption is that the terms must be 1335 reasonable and to some degree, non-discriminatory. This assumption 1336 may be challenged during the Last-Call period. 1338 10.4. Notices 1340 (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: 1342 "The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any 1343 claimed rights to the implementation or use of the technology 1344 described in this document, nor that it has made any effort to 1345 identify any such intellectual property rights. Information on 1346 the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards and 1347 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-xxx, dated 1348 in the future. Copies of claims of rights made available for 1349 publication and the result of an attempt made to obtain a 1350 general license or permission for the use of such proprietary 1351 rights by implementors or users of this specification can be 1352 found online at a location, or locations, nominated from time 1353 to time by the IESG Secretary." 1355 (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1356 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any 1357 intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. 1358 For this purpose, each standards document shall include the 1359 following invitation: 1361 "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its 1362 attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or 1363 other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be 1364 required to practice this standard. Please address the 1365 information to the IESG Secretary" 1367 (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 1368 in all ISOC standards-related documentation: 1370 "Copyright (year) The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 1371 This document may be copied and furnished to others without 1372 restriction of any kind. 1374 The permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 1375 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 1377 The document may not be modified in any way, such as by 1378 removing this copyright notice or references to The Internet 1379 Society or other Internet organizations except as needed for 1380 the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the 1381 procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards 1382 process must be followed. 1384 This document and the information contained herein is provided 1385 on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL 1386 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 1387 ANY WARRANTY OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR ANY 1388 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A 1389 PARTICULAR PURPOSE." 1391 (D) Where the IESG is aware of proprietary rights claimed with 1392 respect to a standards track document, or the technology described 1393 or referenced therein, such document shall contain the following 1394 notice: 1396 "The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights 1397 claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained 1398 in this document. For more information consult the online list 1399 of claimed rights." 1401 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1403 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1404 the documents defining the IETF standards process over the years. 1405 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1406 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1407 Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill 1408 Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, 1409 to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to 1410 Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert and Dick Holleman for their 1411 reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and 1412 to John Stewart and Robert Elz for extensive input on the final 1413 version. 1415 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1416 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1417 incarnations of the POISED working group. 1419 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1421 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1423 13. REFERENCES 1425 [1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 1426 USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1995. 1428 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1429 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1431 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 1432 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. 1434 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1435 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 1437 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, 1438 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. 1440 [6] Postel, J., T. Li, and Y. Rekhter "Best Current Practices, RFC 1441 1818, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Cisco Systems, August 1442 1995. 1444 [7] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are 1445 Standards", RFC 1726, April 1995 1447 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 1449 IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists 1450 of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An 1451 Area is managed by one or two Area Directors. 1452 Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors 1453 along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering 1454 Steering Group (IESG). 1455 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to 1456 transfer files in a TCP/IP network. 1457 gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and 1458 retrieve files in a TCP/IP network. 1459 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists 1460 in the management of the IETF standards process. 1461 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the 1462 IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible 1463 for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the 1464 standards approval board for the IETF. 1465 interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable" 1466 means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path. 1467 Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of 1468 consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action. 1469 (see section 6.1.2) 1470 online - Relating to information made available over the Internet. 1471 When referenced in this document material is said to be online 1472 when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using 1473 standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or 1474 the WWW. 1475 Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a 1476 specific specification, set of specifications or topic. 1478 15. AUTHORS' ADDRESS 1480 Scott O. Bradner 1481 Harvard University 1482 Holyoke Center, Room 813 1483 1350 Mass. Ave. 1484 Cambridge, MA 02138 1485 USA +1 617 495 3864 1487 sob@harvard.edu 1489 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1491 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1492 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1493 AS: Applicability Statement 1494 FTP: File Transfer Protocol 1495 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1496 ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the 1497 International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN 1498 treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT. 1499 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1500 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1501 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1502 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1503 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1504 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1505 IP: Internet Protocol 1506 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1507 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1508 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1509 ISOC: Internet Society 1510 MIB: Management Information Base 1511 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1512 RFC: Request for Comments 1513 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1514 TS: Technical Specification 1515 WWW: World Wide Web