idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. 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 336 has weird spacing: '... itself as lo...' == Line 1388 has weird spacing: '... to perta...' -- 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 10298 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 1478, 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 Informational RFC: RFC 1796 (ref. '6') Summary: 11 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 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 d 6.5.2 Process Failures................21 77 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure........................21 78 6.5.4 Appeals Procedure........................................22 79 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................22 80 7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................23 81 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................23 82 7.1.2 Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................23 83 7.1.3 Assumption..............................................24 84 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................24 85 9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................25 86 9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................25 87 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 understood 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. Section 3 describes the types of Internet 210 standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards 211 specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice 212 RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet 213 standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally- 214 sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by 215 other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet 216 Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices 217 and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow 218 one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document 219 Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect 220 intellectual property rights in the context of the development and 221 use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of 222 some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12 223 notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document. 224 Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14 225 contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document. 226 Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix A 227 contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. 229 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 230 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 232 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 233 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 234 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 235 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 236 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 237 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other 238 Internet document-retrieval systems. 240 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 241 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 242 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 243 topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of 244 new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC 245 publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the 246 general direction of the IAB. 248 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. 249 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 250 in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material 251 (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII 252 version, and it may be formatted differently. 254 ********************************************************* 255 * * 256 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 257 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 258 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 259 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 260 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 261 * * 262 ********************************************************* 264 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 265 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 266 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 267 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 268 specification (see section 3). 270 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 271 subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been 272 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 273 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 274 series. (see section 4.1.3) 276 Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about 277 statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to 278 perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form 279 the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the RFC series. When 280 a specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional 281 label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 282 series. (see section 5) 284 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 285 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 286 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 287 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 288 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 289 of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 291 ******************************************************** 292 * * 293 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 294 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 295 * standards track documents reach the level of * 296 * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * 297 * which describe current practices have been given * 298 * the review and approval to become BCPs. See * 299 * RFC-1796 [6] for further information. * 300 * * 301 ******************************************************** 303 2.2 Internet-Drafts 305 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 306 document are made available for informal review and comment by 307 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 308 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 309 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 310 the process of review and revision. 312 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 313 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 314 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 315 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 316 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 317 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 319 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; 320 specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in 321 the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 322 subject to change or removal at any time. 324 ******************************************************** 325 * * 326 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 327 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 328 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 329 * with an Internet-Draft. * 330 * * 331 ******************************************************** 333 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 334 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 335 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 336 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long 337 as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 338 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 339 the "Work in Progress". 341 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 343 Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into 344 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and 345 Applicability Statement (AS). 347 3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 349 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 350 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 351 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 352 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 353 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 354 by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet 355 Standards). 357 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 358 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently 359 specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that 360 effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use 361 within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the 362 particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different 363 system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. 365 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 367 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 368 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 369 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 370 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7. 372 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 373 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 374 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 375 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 376 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 377 3.3). 379 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 380 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 381 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 382 based database servers. 384 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 385 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 386 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 388 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 389 than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1). 390 For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS 391 at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at 392 the Standard level. 394 3.3 Requirement Levels 396 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 397 of the TSs to which it refers: 399 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 400 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 401 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 402 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 404 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 405 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally 406 accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain 407 of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 408 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 409 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 410 justified by some special circumstance. For example, XXXXXX 412 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 413 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 414 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 415 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user 416 may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For 417 example, XXXXXX 419 As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the 420 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 421 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 423 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 424 these TSs: 426 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use 427 only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 428 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally 429 be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 431 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 432 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because 433 of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 434 status. 436 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 437 standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related 438 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 439 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 440 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 441 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 442 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 443 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 444 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 445 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 446 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 448 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general 449 requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this 450 section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more 451 detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular 452 protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found 453 in appropriate ASs. 455 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 457 Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve 458 through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". 459 These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and 460 "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in 461 which specifications move along the standards track is described in 462 section 6. 464 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, 465 further evolution often occurs based on experience and the 466 recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of 467 Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet 468 Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to 469 indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of 470 maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other 471 specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. 473 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 475 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 476 and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages 477 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 479 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 480 characteristics of specifications at each level. 482 4.1.1 Proposed Standard 484 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 485 Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a 486 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" 487 level. 489 A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved 490 known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 491 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 492 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 493 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 494 before it advances. 496 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 497 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 498 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will 499 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard 500 designation. 502 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 503 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that 504 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 505 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 506 Internet. 508 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with 509 respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may 510 waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance 511 to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and 512 necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 514 Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature 515 specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain 516 experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. 517 However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if 518 problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying 519 implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive 520 environment is not recommended. 522 4.1.2 Draft Standard 524 A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable 525 implementations from different code bases have been developed, and 526 for which sufficient successful operational experience has been 527 obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. If patented 528 or otherwise controlled technology is required for implementation, 529 the separate implementations must also have resulted from separate 530 exercise of the licensing process. Elevation to Draft Standard is a 531 major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the 532 specification is mature and will be useful. 534 For the purposes of this section and section 4.1.3, an 535 "implementation" of a specification is the use of the specification 536 to create an instance of the product described in the specification, 537 and "interoperable" implementations are implementations which 538 interact according to the rules in the specification to perform the 539 functions defined in the specification. Most commonly, for example 540 in peer-to-peer protocol descriptions, this means interacting in the 541 way described in the specification through a data communications 542 path. In other cases, a language specification for example, this 543 could mean that the implementations produce the same results when 544 presented with the same input. 546 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 547 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 548 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 549 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 550 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 551 level only if those options or features are removed. 553 The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific 554 implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet 555 Standard status along with documentation about testing of the 556 interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must 557 include information about the support of each of the individual 558 options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the 559 IESG with the protocol action request. (see Section 6) The IETF 560 Secretariat will make this documentation available to the IETF. 562 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 563 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 564 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or 565 more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 566 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate 567 unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production 568 environments. 570 A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, 571 and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems 572 encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to 573 deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive 574 environment. 576 4.1.3 Internet Standard 578 A specification for which significant implementation and successful 579 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the 580 Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be 581 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of 582 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 583 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 584 community. 586 A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a 587 number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. 589 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 591 Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification 592 may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended 593 for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 594 track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent 595 Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 597 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 598 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 599 "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels 600 are not Internet Standards in any sense. 602 4.2.1 Experimental 604 The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that 605 is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification 606 is published for the general information of the Internet technical 607 community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to 608 editorial considerations and to verification that there has been 609 adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An 610 Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet 611 research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working 612 Group, or it may be an individual contribution. 614 4.2.2 Informational 615 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 616 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 617 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 618 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 619 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 620 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 621 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 622 (see section 4.2.3). 624 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 625 community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards 626 Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as 627 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 628 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 630 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 632 Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents 633 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 634 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will 635 publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already 636 been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts 637 they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are 638 easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this 639 publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor 640 is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial 641 suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or 642 Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in 643 the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet 644 activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for 645 RFCs. 647 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 648 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards 649 Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 650 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 651 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 652 may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the 653 IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document 654 within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be 655 published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a 656 contribution to the Internet Standards Process. 658 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 659 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 660 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 661 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 662 established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an 663 Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG 664 may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or 665 immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to 666 make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. 668 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 669 Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 670 the process described in section 6.1.1. 672 4.2.4 Historic 674 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 675 specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is 676 assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the 677 word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of 678 "Historic" is historical.) 680 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 682 The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to 683 standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A 684 BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as 685 standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF 686 community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking 687 on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way 688 to perform some operations or IETF process function. 690 Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with 691 the technical specifications for hardware and software required for 692 computer communication across interconnected networks. However, 693 since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great 694 variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user 695 service requires that the operators and administrators of the 696 Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. 697 While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style 698 from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process 699 for consensus building. 701 While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are 702 composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the 703 technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities 704 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders 705 in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an 706 outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to 707 raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a 708 statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their 709 thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly 710 structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into 711 the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the 712 community's view of that issue. 714 Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the 715 IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards 716 Process and is published as a BCP. 718 5.1 BCP Review Process 720 Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs 721 are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage 722 standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and 723 immediate instantiation. 725 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 726 is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the 727 existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF 728 Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the 729 document, the process ends and the document is published. The 730 resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the 731 IETF. 733 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 734 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this 735 document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures 736 in section 6.5. 738 Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived 739 at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. 740 Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger 741 Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable 742 for a content different from Informational RFCs. 744 A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been 745 approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while 746 retaining its RFC number(s). 748 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 750 The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of 751 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 752 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 753 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 754 objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available 755 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 756 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 757 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 758 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 759 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 760 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 761 component of the decision-making process. 763 6.1 Standards Actions 765 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 766 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 767 be approved by the IESG. 769 6.1.1 Initiation of Action 771 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 772 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 773 section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC. 774 It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less 775 than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a 776 recommendation for action may be initiated. 778 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF 779 Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, 780 copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not 781 associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to 782 the IESG. 784 6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 786 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 787 it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 788 the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in 789 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 790 of the specification is consistent with that expected for the 791 maturity level to which the specification is recommended. 793 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 794 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 795 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 796 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 797 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 798 specification. 800 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 801 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 802 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 803 via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a 804 Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as 805 directed in the Last-Call announcement. 807 The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in 808 those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by 809 an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no 810 shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community 811 interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may 812 decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a 813 current Last-Call period. 815 The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the 816 specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to 817 consider the specification for publication in a different category 818 than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- 819 Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. 820 The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based 821 on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a 822 specification being published at a "higher" level than the original 823 Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the 824 IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend 825 the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant 826 controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not 827 originating from an IETF Working Group. 829 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 830 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 831 the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 832 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. 834 6.1.3 Publication 836 If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC 837 Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the 838 specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be 839 removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 841 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 842 appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This 843 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 844 actions. 846 The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official 847 Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet 848 protocol and service specifications. 850 6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track 852 The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action 853 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 854 track. 856 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 857 least six (6) months. 859 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least 860 four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, 861 whichever comes later. 863 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 864 community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 865 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 866 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 867 publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the 868 action. 870 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 871 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall 872 determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 873 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 874 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant 875 revision may require that the specification accumulate more 876 experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, 877 if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG 878 may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- 879 entering the standards track at the beginning. 881 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 882 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 883 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 884 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 885 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 886 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 887 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 888 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 889 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 890 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 891 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 892 time-at-level clock. 894 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 895 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 896 twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 897 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of 898 the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the 899 usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG 900 shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, 901 at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification 902 at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This 903 decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the 904 IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an 905 opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a 906 legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an 907 administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 909 6.3 Revising a Standard 911 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 912 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 913 completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the 914 Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which 915 will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both 916 versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements 917 of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between 918 the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the 919 text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an 920 Applicability Statement; see section 3.2). 922 6.4 Retiring a Standard 924 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 925 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 926 or more existing standards track specifications for the same function 927 should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other 928 reason that an existing standards track specification should be 929 retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old 930 specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued 931 with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any 932 other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can 933 originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other 934 interested party. 936 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 938 Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As 939 much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be 940 made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when 941 even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to 942 agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts 943 must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This 944 section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with 945 Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal 946 processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards 947 Process participants ordinarily reach consensus. 949 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes 951 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 952 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 953 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 954 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 955 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 956 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 957 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 958 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 959 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 960 the same process of review. 962 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 963 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 964 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 965 Group as a whole) in the discussion. 967 If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the 968 parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area 969 Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. 970 The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute. 972 If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of 973 the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The 974 IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a 975 manner of its own choosing. 977 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 978 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 979 decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and 980 attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing. 982 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 983 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 984 respect to all questions of technical merit. 986 6.5.2 Process Failures 988 This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to 989 ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and 990 the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the 991 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that 992 is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been 993 followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action 994 have been met. 996 If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in 997 this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the 998 ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant 999 then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along 1000 with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further 1001 action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the 1002 complaint to the IETF. 1004 Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG 1005 review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review 1006 the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own 1007 choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. 1009 If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be 1010 annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG 1011 decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG, 1012 or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, 1013 however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which 1014 only the IESG is empowered to make. 1016 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 1017 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. 1019 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure 1021 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 1022 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 1023 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 1024 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. 1025 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 1026 Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge 1027 such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of 1028 acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the 1029 Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the 1030 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on 1031 the outcome of its review. 1033 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 1034 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 1036 6.5.4 Appeals Procedure 1038 All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the 1039 facts of the dispute. 1041 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 1042 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 1043 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 1044 their decision. 1046 In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, 1047 and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must 1048 be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 1050 [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not 1051 establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered 1052 "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a 1053 premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately 1054 foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of 1055 a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 1056 reached.] 1058 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1060 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1061 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1062 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1063 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1064 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1065 specifications. 1067 There are two categories of external specifications: 1069 (1) Open Standards 1071 Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, 1072 ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service 1073 specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications 1074 defined here. National and international groups also publish 1075 "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability 1076 Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail 1077 concerned with the practical application of their standards. All 1078 of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the 1079 purposes of the Internet Standards Process. 1081 (2) Other Specifications 1083 Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used 1084 in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if 1085 they were a "standards". Such a specification is not generally 1086 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 1087 controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced 1088 it. 1090 7.1 Use of External Specifications 1092 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1093 Internet community will not standardize a specification that is 1094 simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification 1095 unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. 1096 However, there are several ways in which an external specification 1097 that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet 1098 may be adopted for Internet use. 1100 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard 1102 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1103 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1104 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" 1105 [2]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be 1106 available online. 1108 7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications 1110 Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference 1111 to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets 1112 the requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary 1113 specification is not widely and readily available, the IESG may 1114 request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1116 The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary 1117 specification over technically equivalent and competing 1118 specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification 1119 "required" or "recommended". 1121 7.1.3 Assumption 1123 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1124 develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if 1125 (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in 1126 compliance with the requirements of section 10, and (2) change 1127 control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the 1128 specification for the specification or for specifications derived 1129 from the original specification. 1131 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING 1133 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval 1134 of Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain 1135 a publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it 1136 engages, to the extent that the activity represents the 1137 prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards Process. For 1138 purposes of this section, the organizations involved in the 1139 development and approval of Internet Standards includes the IETF, 1140 the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working Groups, and the Internet 1141 Society Board of Trustees. 1143 For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by 1144 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be 1145 made sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all 1146 interested parties to effectively participate. The announcement 1147 shall contain (or provide pointers to) all of the information that 1148 is necessary to support the participation of any interested 1149 individual. In the case of a meeting, for example, the 1150 announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards- 1151 related issues that will be discussed. 1153 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 1154 shall include at least the following: 1156 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 1157 to a charter); 1158 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 1159 o the archives of the Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; 1160 and 1161 o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from 1162 participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related 1163 activity. 1165 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards 1166 Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 1167 responsibility of the IESG Secretariat except that each IETF Working 1168 Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must 1169 make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and 1170 included in the archives. Internet-Drafts that have been removed 1171 (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts directories shall be 1172 archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole purpose of preserving 1173 an historical record of Internet standards activity and thus are not 1174 retrievable except in special circumstances. 1176 9. VARYING THE PROCESS 1178 This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which 1179 Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product 1180 of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section 1181 5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to 1182 be replaced. 1184 While, when published, this document represents the community's view 1185 of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be 1186 met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it 1187 cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to 1188 time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new 1189 version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are 1190 used for any other BCP. 1192 In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures 1193 leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be 1194 situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases 1195 it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described 1196 below. 1198 9.1 The Variance Procedure 1200 Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if 1201 no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc 1202 committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or 1203 advance it within, the standards track even though some of the 1204 requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG 1205 may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines 1206 that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to 1207 outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from 1208 noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising 1209 this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical 1210 merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the 1211 goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance, 1212 (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral 1213 and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's 1214 ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In 1215 determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to 1216 limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document 1217 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it 1218 determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet 1219 community. 1221 The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the 1222 precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a 1223 variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including 1224 consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph. 1225 The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG 1226 shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to 1227 allow for community comment upon the proposal. 1229 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 1230 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 1231 the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 1232 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance 1233 is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request 1234 that it be published as a BCP. 1236 This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some 1237 provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes 1238 to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP 1239 process. 1241 The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process. 1243 9.2 Exclusions 1245 No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt 1246 any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or 1247 consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings 1248 and mailing list discussions. 1250 Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be 1251 subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3 1252 (first sentence), 6.5 and 9. 1254 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1256 10.1. General Policy 1258 In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 1259 intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at 1260 large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 1262 10.2 Confidentiality Obligations 1264 No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 1265 or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part 1266 of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of 1267 any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. 1269 10.3. Rights and Permissions 1271 In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in 1272 various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the 1273 dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand 1274 any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions. 1276 10.3.1. All Contributions 1278 By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the 1279 contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions 1280 on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he 1281 represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the 1282 contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition 1283 to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual 1284 submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made 1285 aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his 1286 own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any 1287 known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. 1289 l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to 1290 copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may 1291 be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he 1292 represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in 1293 the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, 1294 royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC under any 1295 copyrights in the contribution. This license includes the right 1296 to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and 1297 to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all 1298 or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works 1299 to be of the same scope as the license of the original 1300 contribution. 1302 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty 1303 to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. 1305 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and 1306 address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he 1307 represents (if any). 1309 4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge 1310 major contributors. 1312 5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the 1313 owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that 1314 no information in the contribution is confidential and that the 1315 ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any 1316 information in the contribution. 1318 6. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the 1319 contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and 1320 agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the 1321 contributor. 1323 By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet 1324 Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and 1325 free access to IETF documents for which license and right have 1326 been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this 1327 section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is 1328 perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its 1329 successors or assigns. 1331 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents 1333 (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary 1334 rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on 1335 the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the 1336 IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the 1337 document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or 1338 claimed rights. Where implementations are required before 1339 advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by 1340 statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with 1341 any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the 1342 purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification. 1343 (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1344 existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 1345 copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the 1346 fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no 1347 position on the validity or scope of any such rights. 1348 (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the 1349 IESG Secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such 1350 rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG of the 1351 relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any party will 1352 be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the 1353 technology or works when implementing, using or distributing 1354 technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly 1355 specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The Working 1356 Group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which 1357 the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IESG Secretariat 1358 in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect 1359 advancement of a specification along the standards track, except 1360 that the IESG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the 1361 obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be 1362 recorded by the IESG Secretariat , and made available online. The 1363 IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in 1364 any RFC published containing the specification. 1366 10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 1368 The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance 1369 of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a 1370 technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the 1371 normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to 1372 verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated 1373 implementations of the specification that are required to advance 1374 from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by 1375 different organizations or individuals or if the "significant 1376 implementation and successful operational experience" required to 1377 advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the 1378 assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, 1379 non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the 1380 Last-Call period. 1382 10.4. Notices 1384 (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: 1386 "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 1387 any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed 1388 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 1389 described in this document or the extent to which any license 1390 under such rights might or might not be available; neither does 1391 it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such 1392 rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to 1393 rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation 1394 can be found in BCP-xxx, dated in the future. Copies of claims 1395 of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 1396 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made 1397 to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 1398 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this 1399 specification can be found online at a location, or locations, 1400 designated from time to time by the IESG Secretariat." 1402 (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1403 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any 1404 intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. 1405 For this purpose, each standards document shall include the 1406 following invitation: 1408 "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its 1409 attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or 1410 other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be 1411 required to practice this standard. Please address the 1412 information to the IESG Secretariat" 1414 (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 1415 in all ISOC standards-related documentation: 1417 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 1419 This document may be copied and furnished to others without 1420 restriction of any kind. However, this document may not be 1421 modified in any way, such as by removing this copyright notice 1422 or references to The Internet Society or other Internet 1423 organizations except as needed for the purpose of developing 1424 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 1425 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed. 1427 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will 1428 not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or 1429 assigns. 1431 This document and the information contained herein is provided 1432 on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL 1433 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 1434 ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT 1435 INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 1436 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." 1438 (D) Where the IESG is aware of proprietary rights claimed with 1439 respect to a standards track document, or the technology described 1440 or referenced therein, such document shall contain the following 1441 notice: 1443 "The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights 1444 claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained 1445 in this document. For more information consult the online list 1446 of claimed rights." 1448 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1450 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1451 the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. 1452 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1453 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1454 Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill 1455 Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, 1456 to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to 1457 Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert and Dick Holleman for their 1458 reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and 1459 to John Stewart and Robert Elz for extensive input on the final 1460 version. 1462 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1463 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1464 incarnations of the POISED Working Group. 1466 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1468 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1470 13. REFERENCES 1472 [1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 1473 USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1995. 1475 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1476 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1478 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 1479 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. 1481 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1482 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 1484 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, 1485 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. 1487 [6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are 1488 Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995 1490 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 1492 IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists 1493 of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An 1494 Area is managed by one or two Area Directors. 1495 Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors 1496 along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering 1497 Steering Group (IESG). 1498 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to 1499 transfer files in a TCP/IP network. 1500 gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and 1501 retrieve files in a TCP/IP network. 1502 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists 1503 in the management of the IETF standards process. 1504 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the 1505 IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible 1506 for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the 1507 standards approval board for the IETF. 1508 IETF Secretariat - 1509 interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable" 1510 means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path. 1511 Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of 1512 consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action. 1513 (see section 6.1.2) 1514 online - Relating to information made available over the Internet. 1515 When referenced in this document material is said to be online 1516 when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using 1517 standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or 1518 the WWW. 1519 Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a 1520 specific specification, set of specifications or topic. 1522 15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 1524 Scott O. Bradner 1525 Harvard University 1526 Holyoke Center, Room 813 1527 1350 Mass. Ave. 1528 Cambridge, MA 02138 1529 USA +1 617 495 3864 1531 sob@harvard.edu 1533 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1535 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1536 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1537 AS: Applicability Statement 1538 FTP: File Transfer Protocol 1539 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1540 ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the 1541 International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN 1542 treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT. 1543 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1544 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1545 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1546 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1547 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1548 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1549 IP: Internet Protocol 1550 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1551 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1552 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1553 ISOC: Internet Society 1554 MIB: Management Information Base 1555 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1556 RFC: Request for Comments 1557 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1558 TS: Technical Specification 1559 WWW: World Wide Web