idnits 2.17.1 draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 1498. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1475. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1482. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1488. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3932, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2026, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 13, 2006) is 6435 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3700 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 5000) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1311 (ref. '2') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2223 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 7322) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 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 Obsoletes: 2026,3932 (if approved) E. Lear 5 Expires: March 17, 2007 Cisco Systems GmbH 6 September 13, 2006 8 The Internet Standards Process -- Version 4 9 draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.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 March 17, 2007. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 40 Abstract 42 This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for 43 the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the 44 stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a 45 document between stages and the types of documents used during this 46 process. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 1.1. Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 1.2. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 1.3. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 54 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 2.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 56 2.2. Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 58 3.1. Technical Specification (TS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 59 3.2. Applicability Statement (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 60 3.3. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 61 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 62 4.1. Standards Track Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 63 4.2. Level One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 64 4.3. Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 65 4.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 16 66 4.5. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 67 4.6. Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 68 4.7. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs . . . . 17 69 4.8. Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 70 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 71 5.1. BCP Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 72 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 73 6.1. Standards Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 74 6.1.1. Initiation of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 75 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 76 6.1.3. Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 77 6.2. Advancing in the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 78 6.3. Revising a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 79 6.4. Retiring a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 80 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 81 6.5.1. Working Group Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 82 6.5.2. Process Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 83 6.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 26 84 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 85 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 86 7.1. Use of External Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 87 7.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard . . . . . . . . . . 28 88 7.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications . . . . . . . . 29 89 7.1.3. Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 90 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 91 9. VARYING THE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 92 9.1. The Variance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 93 9.2. Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 94 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 95 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 96 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 97 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 98 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 99 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 100 14.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 101 Appendix A. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . 38 102 Appendix B. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 103 Appendix C. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 104 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 105 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 43 106 "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in 107 rough consensus and running code." 108 --Professor Dave Clark 110 1. Introduction 112 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 113 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The 114 Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society 115 that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by 116 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering 117 Steering Group (IESG). 119 1.1. Internet Standards 121 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 122 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 123 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 124 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 125 isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the 126 global Internet but use the Internet Standards. 128 The Internet Standards Process described in this document is 129 concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are 130 used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the 131 TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or 132 standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet 133 Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol 134 or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the 135 protocol itself. 137 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 138 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 139 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 140 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 141 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 143 1.2. The Internet Standards Process 145 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 146 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 147 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 148 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 149 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 150 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 151 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 152 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of 153 establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty 154 of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the 155 Internet community. 157 The goals of the Internet Standards Process are: 159 o technical excellence; 161 o prior implementation and testing; 163 o clear, concise, and easily understood documentation; 165 o openness and fairness; and 167 o timeliness. 169 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 170 open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to be 171 flexible. 173 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 174 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet 175 Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and 176 comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the 177 standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed 178 and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic 179 mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide 180 on-line directories. 182 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 183 generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification 184 must be implemented and tested for correct operation and 185 interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in 186 increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as 187 an Internet Standard. 189 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to 190 the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 191 standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to 192 be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 194 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 195 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 196 parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the 197 other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 198 demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards 199 Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process 200 is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing 201 technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, 202 or openness and fairness. 204 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, 205 an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 206 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. 208 Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and 209 services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution 210 as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 212 The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 213 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 214 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 216 1.3. Organization of This Document 218 Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet 219 Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of Internet 220 standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards 221 specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice 222 RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet 223 standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally- 224 sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by 225 other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet 226 Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices 227 and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow one- 228 time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document Section 229 10 references rules to protect intellectual property rights in the 230 context of the development and use of Internet Standards. Section 11 231 includes acknowledgments of some of the people involved in creation 232 of this document. Section 12 notes that security issues are not 233 dealt with by this document. Section 13 contains IANA 234 considerations. 236 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 238 2.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) 240 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 241 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 242 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 243 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 244 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 245 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, rsync, World Wide Web, and other 246 Internet document-retrieval systems. 248 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 249 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 250 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 251 topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of 252 new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC 253 publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the 254 general direction of the IAB. 256 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [3]. 257 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 258 in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material 259 (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII 260 version, and it may be formatted differently. 262 ********************************************************* 263 * * 264 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 265 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 266 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 267 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 268 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 269 * * 270 ********************************************************* 272 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 273 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 274 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 275 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 276 specification (see section 3). 278 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 279 subseries of the RFC series. [2] When a specification has been 280 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 281 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 282 series. (see section 4.1.3) 284 Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about 285 statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to 286 perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form 287 the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the 288 additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place 289 in the RFC series. (see section 5) 291 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 292 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 293 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 294 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 295 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 296 of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 298 ******************************************************* 299 * * 300 * It is important to note that many RFCs are NOT * 301 * standards OR BCPs and are NOT endorsed in any way * 302 * by the IETF, the IRTF, the IAB, or the Internet * 303 * Society. Such RFCs are published independently * 304 * and are given only cursory review. * 305 * * 306 ******************************************************* 308 2.2. Internet-Drafts 310 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 311 document are made available for informal review and comment by 312 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 313 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 314 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 315 the process of review and revision. 317 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 318 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 319 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 320 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 321 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 322 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 324 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification in 325 any permanent way; they are meant to be ephemeral. Specifications 326 are published only through the RFC mechanism described in the 327 previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 328 subject to change or removal at any time. 330 ******************************************************** 331 * * 332 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 333 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 334 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 335 * with an Internet-Draft. * 336 * * 337 ******************************************************** 339 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 340 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 341 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 342 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as 343 the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 344 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 345 the "Work in Progress". 347 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 349 Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into 350 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and Applicability 351 Statement (AS). 353 3.1. Technical Specification (TS) 355 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 356 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 357 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 358 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 359 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 360 by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet 361 Standards). A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the 362 general intent for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS 363 that is inherently specific to a particular context shall contain a 364 statement to that effect. However, a TS does not specify 365 requirements for its use within the Internet; these requirements, 366 which depend on the particular context in which the TS is 367 incorporated by different system configurations, are defined by an 368 Applicability Statement. 370 3.2. Applicability Statement (AS) 372 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 373 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 374 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 375 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7. 377 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 378 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 379 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 380 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 381 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 382 3.3). 384 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 385 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 386 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 387 based database servers. 389 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 390 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 391 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 393 3.3. Requirement Levels 395 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 396 of the TSs to which it refers: 398 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 399 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 400 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 401 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. This requirement level is reserved for 402 only the most critical Internet functions, and thus its use will 403 be given the most scrutiny during the review process. 405 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not required 406 for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally accepted 407 technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain of 408 applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 409 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 410 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 411 justified by some special circumstance. For example, DHCP client 412 functions allow for ease of device configuration. 414 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional within 415 the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS creates no 416 explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a particular vendor 417 may decide to implement it, or a particular user may decide that 418 it is a necessity in a specific environment. For example, the 419 OSPF MIB could be seen as valuable in an environment where the 420 OSPF protocol is used. 422 As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the 423 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 424 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 425 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 426 these TSs: 428 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use only 429 in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage of a 430 protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally be 431 limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 433 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate for 434 general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because of 435 its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic status. 437 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 438 standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related 439 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 440 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 441 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 442 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 443 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 444 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 445 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 446 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 447 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 449 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general 450 requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this 451 section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more 452 detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular 453 protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found 454 in appropriate ASs. 456 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 458 There are two levels of Internet Standards development, level one 459 (L1) and level two (L2). These two levels indicate ability of 460 multiple implementations to interoperate, stability of the 461 specifications, and a general consensus of the community as to how 462 the specifications are accepted. 464 This marks a change from the previous version of the standards 465 process. The rational for this change may be found in an appendix. 466 The following mapping for documents published prior to this memo 467 applies: 469 Previous "Maturity" Current Level 470 --------------------------------------- 471 Proposed L1 472 Draft L2 473 Internet Standard L2 475 The RFC Editor is requested to assign standard numbers to those L1 TS 476 specifications, in consultation with the IESG so that specifications 477 are grouped appropriately. 479 Once a group of one or more Technical Specifications are approved for 480 level L1, the group is considered an Internet Standard, and an STD 481 number is assigned by the RFC Editor, once the associated RFCs are 482 published. To reach the optional level of L2, a rigorous review of 483 the L1 specifications is required, as will be specified in Section 6. 485 Even after a specification has been adopted at level L2, further 486 evolution often occurs based on experience and the recognition of new 487 requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of Internet 488 standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet Standards 489 with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to indicate 490 the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A description of these 491 statuses is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and specifications 492 other that are not considered to be on the standards track. 494 4.1. Standards Track Levels 496 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 497 and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages 498 are formally labeled "standards levels". This section describes the 499 levels and the expected characteristics of specifications at each 500 level. 502 4.2. Level One 504 The first stage of standardization is known as Level 1 (L1). A 505 specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto 506 the standards track at L1 before it can advance to L2. 508 An L1 Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known 509 design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 510 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 511 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 512 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 513 before it could advance to L2. 515 While neither implementation nor operational experience is strictly 516 required for the designation of a specification as an L1 Standard, 517 such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a 518 strong argument in favor of advancement. 520 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 521 prior to granting L1 Standard status to a specification that 522 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 523 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 524 Internet, or in cases where they believe the specification will be 525 difficult to deploy. 527 An L1 Standard should have no known technical omissions with respect 528 to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may waive this 529 requirement in order to allow a specification to advance to the L1 530 Standard state when it is considered to be useful and necessary (and 531 timely) even with known technical omissions. In such cases, the 532 specification will note such known omissions. 534 Implementors should expect L1 Standards to change over time. It is 535 desirable to implement them in order to gain experience and to 536 validate, test, and clarify the specification. Since the content of 537 L1 Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions 538 are identified, such standards should be deployed with care in 539 disruption-sensitive environments. 541 4.3. Level 2 543 A specification from which at least three independent and 544 interoperable implementations from different code bases have been 545 developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience 546 has been obtained, may be elevated to Level 2 (L2). For the purposes 547 of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally equivalent 548 or interchangeable components of the system or process in which they 549 are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required 550 for implementation, the separate implementations must also have 551 resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. Elevation 552 to L2 is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that 553 the specification is mature and will be useful. 555 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 556 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 557 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 558 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 559 implementations, the specification may advance to Level 2 only if 560 those options or features are removed. 562 Typically, when a TS is to be advanced to Level 2, a working group is 563 chartered for this purpose. In such cases, the Working Group chair 564 is responsible for documenting the specific implementations which 565 qualify the specification for Level 2 status along with documentation 566 about testing of the interoperation of these implementations. The 567 documentation must include information about the support of each of 568 the individual options and features. This documentation should be 569 submitted to the Area Director with the protocol action request. (see 570 Section 6) 572 In those limited cases where it is felt that a working group is not 573 needed, an Area Director will designate someone who will provide the 574 appropriate documentation to indicate that a TS is ready to be 575 advanced. 577 A Level 2 Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 578 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 579 implementation. An L2 Standard is normally considered to be a final 580 specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve 581 specific problems encountered. Generally it is reasonable for 582 vendors to deploy implementations of L2 Standards into a disruption 583 sensitive environment. 585 4.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 587 Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification 588 may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended 589 for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 590 track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent 591 Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 592 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 593 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 594 "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels 595 are not Internet Standards in any sense. 597 4.5. Experimental 599 The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that 600 is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification 601 is published for the general information of the Internet technical 602 community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to 603 editorial considerations and to verification that there has been 604 adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An 605 Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet 606 research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working 607 Group, or it may be an individual contribution. 609 4.6. Informational 611 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 612 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 613 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 614 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 615 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 616 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 617 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 618 (see section 4.2.3). 620 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 621 community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards 622 Process by any of the provisions of BCP 78 and 79 may be published as 623 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 624 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 626 4.7. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 628 Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents 629 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 630 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. All such documents 631 must first exist as Internet-Drafts. In order to differentiate these 632 Internet-Drafts they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory 633 so they are easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait four weeks 634 after this publication for comments before proceeding further. The 635 RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the 636 editorial suitability of a document for publication with Experimental 637 or Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, 638 in the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet 639 activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for 640 RFCs. 642 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 643 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards 644 Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 645 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 646 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 647 may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the 648 IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document 649 within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be 650 published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a 651 contribution to the Internet Standards Process. 653 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 654 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 655 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 656 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 657 established IETF effort (be that standard or experimental), or (c) 658 the IESG considers that the document specifies or recommends behavior 659 that could be harmful to the Internet in a deployment, the document 660 may still be published at the discretion of the RFC Editor. However, 661 in such cases, the IESG may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into 662 the RFC either in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo" 663 section in order to make the circumstances of its publication clear 664 to readers. The purpose of this restriction is not to prohibit 665 points of view that differ from that of the IESG, but to protect 666 against misleading or dangerous behavior, either by authors or by 667 implementations. 669 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 670 Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 671 the process described in section 6.1.1. 673 4.8. Historic 675 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 676 specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is 677 assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the 678 word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of 679 "Historic" is historical.) 681 Note: Standards track specifications must not depend on non-standards 682 track specifications, other than those referenced specifications from 683 other standards bodies (See Section 7). Furthermore, it is strongly 684 recommended that L2 standards not depend on L1 standards. Where such 685 cases exist, they should be clearly noted as a risk in the L2 686 specification. 688 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 690 The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to 691 standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A 692 BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as 693 standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF 694 community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking 695 on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way 696 to perform some operations or IETF process function. 698 Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with 699 the technical specifications for hardware and software required for 700 computer communication across interconnected networks. However, 701 since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great 702 variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user 703 service requires that the operators and administrators of the 704 Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. 705 While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style 706 from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process 707 for consensus building. 709 While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are 710 composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the 711 technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities 712 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders 713 in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an 714 outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to 715 raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a 716 statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their 717 thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly 718 structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into 719 the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the 720 community's view of that issue. 722 Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the 723 IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards 724 Process and is published as a BCP. 726 5.1. BCP Review Process 728 Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs 729 are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the two stage 730 standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and 731 immediate instantiation. 733 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 734 is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the 735 existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF 736 Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the 737 document, the process ends and the document is published. The 738 resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the 739 IETF. 741 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 742 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this 743 document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the 744 procedures in section 6.5. 746 Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived 747 at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. 748 Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger 749 Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable 750 for a content different from Informational RFCs. 752 A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been 753 approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while 754 retaining its RFC number(s). 756 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 758 The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of 759 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 760 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 761 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 762 objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available 763 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 764 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 765 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 766 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 767 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 768 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 769 component of the decision-making process. 771 6.1. Standards Actions 773 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 774 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 775 be approved by the IESG. 777 6.1.1. Initiation of Action 779 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 780 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 781 section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC. 782 It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less 783 than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a 784 recommendation for action may be initiated. 786 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF 787 Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, 788 copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not 789 associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to 790 the IESG. As a practical matter, the IESG requires that individual 791 submissions be sponsored by an Area Director. The wisdom behind this 792 is simply that if the author(s) cannot find at least one AD to 793 support a draft, they certainly not be able to find support for 794 advancement. 796 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval 798 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 799 it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 800 the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in 801 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 802 of the specification is consistent with that expected for the 803 maturity level to which the specification is recommended. 805 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 806 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 807 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 808 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 809 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 810 specification. 812 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 813 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 814 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 815 via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a 816 Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as 817 directed in the Last-Call announcement. 819 The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in 820 those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by 821 an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no 822 shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community 823 interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may 824 decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a 825 current Last-Call period. 827 The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the 828 specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to 829 consider the specification for publication in a different category 830 than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- 831 Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. 833 The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based 834 on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a 835 specification being published at a "higher" level than the original 836 Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the 837 IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend 838 the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant 839 controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not 840 originating from an IETF Working Group. 842 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 843 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 844 the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 845 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. 847 6.1.3. Publication 849 If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC 850 Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the 851 specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be 852 removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 854 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 855 appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This 856 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 857 actions. 859 The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official 860 Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet 861 protocol and service specifications. 863 6.2. Advancing in the Standards Track 865 The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action 866 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 867 track. 869 A specification shall remain at Level 1 for at least one year. This 870 minimum period is intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 871 community review without severely impacting timeliness. This 872 interval shall be measured from the date of publication of the 873 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 874 publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the 875 action. 877 When a specification is advanced from Level 1 to Level 2, it may be 878 (indeed, is likely to be) revised. The IESG shall determine the 879 scope and significance of the revision to the specification, and, if 880 necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action. Minor 881 revisions are expected, but a significant revision may require that 882 the specification accumulate more experience at Level 1 before 883 progressing. 885 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 886 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 887 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 888 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 889 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 890 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 891 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 892 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 893 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 894 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 895 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 896 time-at-level clock. 898 When a standards-track specification has not reached the an L2 899 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 900 twenty-four (24) months or at any time thereafter, the IESG may at 901 its sole discretion and in a manner of its choosing review the 902 viability of the standardization effort responsible for that 903 specification and the usefulness of the technology. Following each 904 such review, the IESG shall approve termination or continuation of 905 the development effort, at the same time the IESG shall decide to 906 maintain the specification at the same maturity level or to move it 907 to Historic status. This decision shall be communicated to the IETF 908 by electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list to allow the 909 Internet community an opportunity to comment. This provision is not 910 intended to threaten a legitimate and active Working Group effort, 911 but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for terminating a 912 moribund effort. 914 6.3. Revising a Standard 916 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 917 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 918 completely new specification. A new L1 Standard will retire an old 919 L1 Standard. However, only a new L2 Standard can retire an old L2 920 Standard. Retired standards are moved to Historic status. Once the 921 new version has reached the Standard level, it will usually replace 922 the previous version, which will be moved to Historic status. 923 However, in some cases both versions may remain as Internet Standards 924 to honor the requirements of an installed base. In this situation, 925 the relationship between the previous and the new versions must be 926 explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another 927 appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see section 928 3.2). 930 6.4. Retiring a Standard 932 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 933 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 934 or more existing standards track specifications for the same function 935 should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other 936 reason that an existing standards track specification should be 937 retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old 938 specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued 939 with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any 940 other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can 941 originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other 942 interested party. 944 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals 946 Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As 947 much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be 948 made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when 949 even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to 950 agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts 951 must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This 952 section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with 953 Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal 954 processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards 955 Process participants ordinarily reach consensus. 957 6.5.1. Working Group Disputes 959 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 960 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 961 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 962 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 963 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 964 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 965 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 966 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 967 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 968 the same process of review. 970 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 971 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 972 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 973 Group as a whole) in the discussion. 975 If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the 976 parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area 977 Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. 978 The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute. If the 979 disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of the 980 parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The IESG 981 shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner 982 of its own choosing. 984 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 985 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 986 decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and 987 attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing. 989 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 990 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 991 respect to all questions of technical merit. 993 6.5.2. Process Failures 995 This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to 996 ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and 997 the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the 998 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that 999 is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been 1000 followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action 1001 have been met. 1003 If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in 1004 this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the 1005 IESG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant 1006 then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along 1007 with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further 1008 action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the 1009 complaint to the IETF. 1011 Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG 1012 review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then 1013 review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own 1014 choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. 1016 If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be 1017 annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG 1018 decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the 1019 IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB 1020 may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision 1021 which only the IESG is empowered to make. 1023 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 1024 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. 1026 6.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure 1028 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 1029 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 1030 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 1031 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. 1032 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 1033 Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge 1034 such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of 1035 acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the 1036 Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the 1037 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on 1038 the outcome of its review. 1040 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 1041 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 1043 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure 1045 All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the 1046 facts of the dispute. 1048 All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public 1049 knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. 1051 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 1052 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 1053 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 1054 their decision. 1056 In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, 1057 and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must 1058 be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. [NOTE: These 1059 procedures intentionally and explicitly do not establish a fixed 1060 maximum time period that shall be considered "reasonable" in all 1061 cases. The Internet Standards Process places a premium on consensus 1062 and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately foregoes 1063 deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of a 1064 latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 1065 reached.] 1067 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1069 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1070 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1071 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1072 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1073 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1074 specifications. 1076 There are two categories of external specifications: 1078 (1) Open Standards Various national and international standards 1079 bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of 1080 protocol and service specifications that are similar to Technical 1081 Specifications defined here. National and international groups 1082 also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to 1083 Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation- 1084 specific detail concerned with the practical application of their 1085 standards. All of these are considered to be "open external 1086 standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process. 1088 (2) Other Specifications Other proprietary specifications that have 1089 come to be widely used in the Internet may be treated by the 1090 Internet community as if they were a "standards". Such a 1091 specification is not generally developed in an open fashion, is 1092 typically proprietary, and is controlled by the vendor, vendors, 1093 or organization that produced it. 1095 7.1. Use of External Specifications 1097 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1098 Internet community will not standardize a specification that is 1099 simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification 1100 unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. 1101 However, there are several ways in which an external specification 1102 that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet 1103 may be adopted for Internet use. 1105 7.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard 1107 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1108 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1109 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII". [4] 1110 Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available 1111 online. 1113 7.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications 1115 Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to 1116 a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the 1117 requirements of BCPs 78 and 79. If the other proprietary 1118 specification is not widely and readily available, the IESG may 1119 request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1121 The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary 1122 specification over technically equivalent and competing 1123 specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification 1124 "required" or "recommended". 1126 7.1.3. Assumption 1128 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1129 develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1) 1130 the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with 1131 the requirements of BCPs 78 and 79, and (2) change control has been 1132 conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for 1133 the specification or for specifications derived from the original 1134 specification. 1136 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING 1138 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of 1139 Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a 1140 publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to 1141 the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part 1142 of the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the 1143 organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet 1144 Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working 1145 Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees. 1147 For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by 1148 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made 1149 sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested 1150 parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain 1151 (or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to 1152 support the participation of any interested individual. In the case 1153 of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda 1154 that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed. 1156 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 1157 shall include at least the following: 1159 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 1160 to a charter); 1162 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 1164 o the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and 1166 o all written contributions from participants that pertain to the 1167 organization's standards-related activity. 1169 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards 1170 Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 1171 responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working 1172 Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must 1173 make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and 1174 included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is 1175 responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and 1176 accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that 1177 have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts 1178 directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the purpose 1179 of preserving an historical record of Internet standards activity. 1180 The Secretariat may make such drafts available as directed by a court 1181 order, or as otherwise directed by the IAD in order to further the 1182 purposes of the IETF, IESG, IAB, or Internet Society. 1184 9. VARYING THE PROCESS 1186 This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which 1187 Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product 1188 of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section 1189 5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to 1190 be replaced. 1192 While, when published, this document represents the community's view 1193 of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be 1194 met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it 1195 cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time 1196 to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a 1197 new version. Updating this document uses similar open procedures as 1198 are used for any other BCP. 1200 In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures 1201 leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be 1202 situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases 1203 it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described 1204 below. 1206 9.1. The Variance Procedure 1208 Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if 1209 no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc 1210 committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or 1211 advance it within, the standards track even though some of the 1212 requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG 1213 may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines 1214 that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to 1215 outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from 1216 noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising 1217 this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical 1218 merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the 1219 goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance, 1220 (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral 1221 and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's 1222 ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In 1223 determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to 1224 limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document 1225 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it 1226 determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet 1227 community. 1229 The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the 1230 precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a 1231 variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including 1232 consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph. 1233 The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG 1234 shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to 1235 allow for community comment upon the proposal. 1237 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 1238 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 1239 the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 1240 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance 1241 is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request 1242 that it be published as a BCP. 1244 This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some 1245 provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes 1246 to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP 1247 process. 1249 The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process. 1251 9.2. Exclusions 1253 No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt 1254 any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or 1255 consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings 1256 and mailing list discussions. 1258 Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be 1259 subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3 1260 (first sentence), 6.5 and 9. XXX-check numbering. 1262 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1264 The previous version of this memo specified Intellectual Property 1265 Rights of individuals and the Internet community. Experience has 1266 shown that this is still an evolving area. The Internet process 1267 specified in this memo incorporates by reference BCPs 78 and 79. 1268 These are important documents that should be well understood by 1269 participants prior to submitting specifications for standardization. 1271 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1273 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1274 the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. 1275 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1276 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1277 The next version lived on in RFC 2026 for over ten years, something 1278 that amazes the current authors. In particular, thanks go to Lyman 1279 Chapin, Phill Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the 1280 previous versions, to Jon Postel, Dave Crocker, John Stewart, Robert 1281 Elz, and Steve Coya for their inputs to those versions, and to Sam 1282 Hartman, Joel Halpern, Fred Baker, Spencer Dawkins, and Leslie Daigle 1283 for their input into this version (for both what is there and what is 1284 not). 1286 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1287 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1288 incarnations of the POISED Working Group. 1290 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1292 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1294 13. IANA Considerations 1296 While there are no specific IANA considerations in this memo, when 1297 the IESG chooses to retire a standard based on the guidance contained 1298 here-in, it should provide IANA with specific requests relating to 1299 those standards. 1301 14. References 1303 14.1. Normative References 1305 [1] Reynolds, J. and S. Ginoza, "Internet Official Protocol 1306 Standards", STD 1, RFC 3700, July 2004. 1308 [2] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1309 March 1992. 1311 [3] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", 1312 RFC 2223, October 1997. 1314 14.2. Informational References 1316 [4] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character Set - 1317 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange", 1318 ANSI X3.4, 1986. 1320 Appendix A. Changes from Previous Versions 1322 The following changes have been made to this document since RFC 2026: 1324 o The standards track has been revamped to be a two-step process, 1325 where the second step is optional. The reasoning behind this is 1326 that few if any documents were making it beyond the first step in 1327 the standards process. A second step remains for those who wish 1328 to demonstrate that a particular standard is very stable. The 1329 authors expect further review to occur as we get experience with 1330 the new process. 1332 o All Technical Specifications approved by the IESG are now 1333 Standards. In practice, nobody treated a Proposed Standard as 1334 anything other than a standard, and so we are recognizing this 1335 fact. 1337 o A mapping of old to new is discussed. 1339 o The IESG no longer is required to review standards that have not 1340 achieved L2 status. These timelines may have made sense ten years 1341 ago, but in practice since then there has only been a single 1342 review. At its sole discretion and in a manner of its choosing, 1343 the IESG may review specifications below L2 after a period of 24 1344 months. 1346 o Intellectual Property Rights have been moved out of the document 1347 and incorporated by reference. 1349 o Portions of text have been revised to reflect the current state of 1350 the Internet. References to DECNET and FTP have been removed. 1352 o All submissions to the RFC Editor must be in the form of Internet- 1353 Drafts. 1355 Appendix B. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 1357 xxx IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area 1358 consists of Working Groups related to a general topic such as 1359 routing. An Area is managed by one or two Area Directors. 1361 Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors 1362 along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering Steering 1363 Group (IESG). 1365 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to 1366 transfer files in a TCP/IP network. 1368 gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and 1369 retrieve files in a TCP/IP network. 1371 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists 1372 in the management of the IETF standards process. 1374 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the 1375 IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible for 1376 the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the standards 1377 approval board for the IETF. 1379 interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable" 1380 means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path. 1382 Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of 1383 consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action. 1384 (see section 6.1.2) 1386 online - Relating to information made available over the Internet. 1387 When referenced in this document material is said to be online when 1388 it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using standard 1389 Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or the WWW. 1391 Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a 1392 specific specification, set of specifications or topic. 1394 Appendix C. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1396 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1398 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1400 AS: Applicability Statement 1402 FTP: File Transfer Protocol 1404 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1406 ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the 1408 International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN 1410 treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT. 1412 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1414 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1416 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1418 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1420 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1422 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1424 IP: Internet Protocol 1426 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1428 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1430 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1432 ISOC: Internet Society 1434 MIB: Management Information Base 1436 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1438 RFC: Request for Comments 1440 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1441 TS: Technical Specification 1443 WWW: World Wide Web 1445 Authors' Addresses 1447 Scott O. Bradner 1448 Harvard University 1449 Holyoke Center, Room 813 1450 1350 Mass. Ave. 1451 Cambridge,, MA 02138 1452 USA 1454 Phone: +1 617 495 3864 1455 Email: sob@harvard.edu 1457 Eliot Lear 1458 Cisco Systems GmbH 1459 Glatt-com 1460 Glattzentrum, ZH CH-8301 1461 Switzerland 1463 Phone: +41 1 878 9200 1464 Email: lear@cisco.com 1466 Intellectual Property Statement 1468 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1469 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1470 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1471 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1472 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1473 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1474 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1475 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1477 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1478 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1479 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1480 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1481 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1482 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1484 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1485 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1486 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1487 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 1488 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 1490 Disclaimer of Validity 1492 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1493 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1494 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 1495 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 1496 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 1497 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1498 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1500 Copyright Statement 1502 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 1503 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 1504 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 1506 Acknowledgment 1508 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 1509 Internet Society.