idnits 2.17.1 draft-klensin-norm-ref-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 268. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 279. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 286. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 292. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 170: '... in section 3.2, SHOULD be added to th...' -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3967, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC3967 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC3967, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2003-10-21) -- 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 (March 26, 2007) is 6212 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Klensin 3 Internet-Draft 4 Updates: 3967 (if approved) S. Hartman 5 Expires: September 27, 2007 MIT 6 March 26, 2007 8 Handling Normative References to Standards Track Documents 9 draft-klensin-norm-ref-04.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2007. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 40 Abstract 42 The IETF and RFC Editor have a long-standing rule that a document at 43 a given maturity level cannot be published until all documents it 44 references as normative are at that maturity level or higher. This 45 rule has sometimes resulted in very long publication delays for 46 documents and some claims that it was a major obstruction to 47 advancing documents in maturity level. The IETF agreed to a way to 48 bypass this rule with RFC 3967. This document describes a simpler 49 procedure for downward references to Standards track and BCP 50 documents, namely "note and move on". The procedure in RFC 3967 51 still applies for downward references to other classes of document. 52 In both cases, annotations should be added to such References. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Normative Reference Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG . . . . . . 4 60 3.2. Documents Already in RFC Editor Queue . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Target Documents not on the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way . . . . . . . 5 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 9. Changes for version -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 1. Introduction 73 The IETF and RFC Editor have a long-standing rule (see, e.g., RFC 74 2026, Section 4.2.4 [RFC2026] and the extended discussion in RFC 3967 75 [RFC3967]) that a document at a given maturity level cannot be 76 published until all documents it references as normative are at that 77 maturity level or higher. This rule has sometimes resulted in very 78 long publication delays for documents and some claims that it was a 79 major obstruction to advancing documents in maturity level. 80 Recognizing the problems that this rule sometimes caused, RFC 3967 81 established an exception procedure for normative downward references 82 under some specific circumstances. Perhaps because of its fairly 83 stringent requirements, RFC 3967 has not proven adequate either to 84 clear the backlog of documents awaiting upgraded documents or to 85 prevent additional documents from joining that queue. 87 This document replaces the long-standing rule for downward references 88 to standards-track documents (including BCPs) that are already 89 published. While downward references to, e.g., Internet Drafts, are 90 theoretically possible, they are not contemplated here. 92 This document replaces the "hold on normative reference" rule with a 93 "note downward normative reference and move on" approach for 94 normative references to standards-track documents and BCPs. 96 This document also updates RFC 3967 to encourage downward references 97 approved through that procedure to be noted in the same way as 98 references approved under this rule. 100 2. Terminology 102 A reference involves two documents, the one in which the reference is 103 embedded and the document referenced. Where needed for clarity, 104 these documents are referred to as the "source document" and "target 105 document" respectively. 107 The term "standards track document", as used in this specification, 108 is assumed to include BCPs but not Informational or Experimental 109 documents of any variety or origin. 111 3. Normative Reference Rule 113 This document specifies a alternative to holding source documents 114 until all target documents referenced normatively are upgraded or by 115 applying the procedure of RFC 3967. 117 3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG 119 An author or editor who requires a normative downward reference to a 120 standards-track RFC uses the following very simple procedure: 122 o The reference text (i.e., in the "Normative References" section of 123 the source document) is written as usual. 124 o A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the 125 reference is to a target document of a lower maturity level, that 126 some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the 127 document from which it is being referenced, and, optionally, 128 explaining why the downward reference is appropriate. 130 The IESG may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used, 131 establish procedures regarding the text to use, or give guidance on 132 this text. When establishing procedures the IESG should seek 133 appropriate community review. 135 These annotations are part of the source document. If members of the 136 community consider either the downward reference or the annotation 137 text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised at any time in 138 the document life cycle, just as with any other text in the document. 139 There is no separate review on these references. 141 With appropriate community review, the IESG may establish procedures 142 for when normative downward references should delay a document and 143 when downward references should be noted. Absent specific guidance, 144 authors and reviewers should use their best judgment. It is assumed 145 that in a significant majority of cases, noting a downward reference 146 is preferable to delaying publication. 148 At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached to non- 149 normative references. 151 3.2. Documents Already in RFC Editor Queue 153 The IESG may, at its discretion, specify a procedure to be applied to 154 source documents that are already in the RFC Editor queue, awaiting 155 target referenced documents. The IESG should encourage authors with 156 documents in the rfc-editor queue awaiting downward references to 157 standards-track RFCs to evaluate whether this new rule is appropriate 158 for their documents. If authors believe that adding an annotation 159 and releasing the documents is the best way forward, then the IESG 160 should insure that appropriate review is conducted and if that review 161 agrees with the authors allow the annotations to be added. The IESG 162 will announce its decision via the normal Protocol-Action or 163 Document-Action mechanisms. 165 4. Target Documents not on the Standards Track 167 In the case of a normative reference to a document not on the 168 standards track that is approved under the procedures defined in RFC 169 3967, the annotation described in section 3.1, or the retrospective 170 annotation described in section 3.2, SHOULD be added to the reference 171 unless the IESG, after consideration of Last Call input, concludes it 172 is inappropriate. 174 5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way 176 The "downward reference by annotation" model specified here is 177 applicable only to published standards track RFCs at lower maturity 178 levels. 180 Obviously such downward references are part of the relevant source 181 document at IETF Last Call and subject to comments from the 182 community. 184 Advancing documents, when appropriate, is still considered preferable 185 to the use of either this procedure or the one specified in RFC 3967. 186 This specification does not impose a specific test or requirement to 187 determine appropriateness, partially because it would be impossible 188 to do so for the general case, but the intention is to permit the 189 IESG and the community to balance the importance of getting a source 190 document published against the time and difficulty associated with 191 upgrading a target document. That requirement is intended to be less 192 stringent than the one of RFC 3967. 194 6. Security Considerations 196 This document specifies an IETF procedure. It is not believed to 197 raise any security issues although, in principle, relaxing the 198 normative downward reference rules for references associated with 199 security mechanisms could make a specification less stable and hence 200 less secure. 202 7. IANA Considerations 204 This document requires no actions by the IANA. 206 8. Acknowledgments 208 This proposal was suggested by a comment by Spencer Dawkins and many 209 complaints about the negative impact of the current rules. The 210 author is unsure about the validity of some of those complaints; the 211 proposal is, in part, a way to test the validity question. Spencer 212 also provided helpful comments on a preliminary draft. It was 213 revised in response to extensive discussion in the IESG and benefited 214 significantly by comments by Brian Carpenter. 216 9. Changes for version -02 218 The proposal has been significantly trimmed based on discussion with 219 the IESG during and after Last Call. In particular, the provisions 220 for downward references to approved, but unpublished, Internet-Drafts 221 and for references to Informational documents have been removed and 222 the proposal targeted at BCP rather than experimental status. The 223 revised procedure applies only to published standards-track documents 224 at a lower maturity level. 226 Some editorial corrections have also been made to improve clarity. 228 10. Normative References 230 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 231 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 233 [RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track 234 Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower 235 Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004. 237 Authors' Addresses 239 John C Klensin 240 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 241 Cambridge, MA 02140 242 USA 244 Phone: +1 617 491 5735 245 Email: john-ietf@jck.com 246 Sam Hartman 247 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 248 77 Massachusetts Ave 249 Cambridge, MA 02139 250 USA 252 Email: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu 254 Full Copyright Statement 256 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 258 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 259 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 260 retain all their rights. 262 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 263 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 264 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 265 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 266 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 267 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 268 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 270 Intellectual Property 272 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 273 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 274 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 275 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 276 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 277 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 278 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 279 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 281 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 282 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 283 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 284 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 285 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 286 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 288 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 289 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 290 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 291 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 292 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 294 Acknowledgment 296 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 297 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).