idnits 2.17.1 draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 02, 2016) is 2884 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1264 (Obsoleted by RFC 4794) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6982 (Obsoleted by RFC 7942) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Y. Sheffer 3 Internet-Draft Intuit 4 Obsoletes: 6982 (if approved) A. Farrel 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice Juniper Networks 6 Expires: December 4, 2016 June 02, 2016 8 Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section 9 draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-02 11 Abstract 13 This document describes a simple process that allows authors of 14 Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by 15 including an Implementation Status section. This will allow 16 reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents 17 that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of 18 valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented 19 protocols more mature. 21 This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are 22 encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and 23 working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all 24 of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, 25 advancing it to a Best Current Practice. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2016. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. The "Implementation Status" Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2.1. Introductory Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3. Alternative Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 A.1. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 A.2. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 A.3. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 1. Introduction 77 Most IETF participants are familiar with the saying "rough consensus 78 and running code" [Tao] and can identify with its pragmatic approach. 79 However, implementation is not a requirement for publication as an 80 RFC. There are many examples of Internet-Drafts containing protocol 81 specification that have gone through to publication as Proposed 82 Standard RFCs without implementation. Some of them may never get 83 implemented. 85 Over time, a variety of policies have been applied within the IETF to 86 consider running code. In the Routing Area, it used to be a 87 requirement that one or more implementations must exist before an 88 Internet-Draft could be published as a Proposed Standard RFC 89 [RFC1264]. That RFC was later obsoleted and the requirement for 90 implementation was lifted, but each working group was given the 91 authority to impose its own implementation requirements [RFC4794] and 92 at least one working group, Inter-Domain Routing (IDR), continues to 93 require two independent implementations. 95 The hypothesis behind the current document is that there are benefits 96 to the IETF standardization process of producing implementations of 97 protocol specifications before publication as RFCs. These benefits, 98 which include determining that the specification is comprehensible 99 and that there is sufficient interest to implement, are further 100 discussed in Section 4. 102 This document describes a simple mechanism that allows authors of 103 Internet-Drafts to record and publicize the status of known 104 implementations by including an Implementation Status section. The 105 document defines (quite informally) the contents of this section to 106 ensure that the relevant information is included. This will allow 107 reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents 108 that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of 109 valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented 110 protocols more mature. 112 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 113 they see fit, but one result might be the preferential treatment of 114 documents, resulting in them being processed more rapidly. We 115 recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed 116 from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs. As a result, 117 we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the 118 document for publication, while the document sits in the RFC-editor 119 queue, e.g., the RFC errata process does not apply. 121 This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are 122 encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and 123 working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all 124 of their protocol specifications. 126 The scope of this process is all Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that contain 127 implementable specifications, whether produced within IETF working 128 groups or outside working groups but intended for IETF consensus. 129 I-Ds published on the Independent Stream are explicitly out of scope. 130 It is expected that the greatest benefit will be seen with Standards 131 Track documents developed within working groups. 133 This process was initially proposed as an experiment in [RFC6982]. 134 That document is now obsoleted, and the process advanced to Best 135 Current Practice. 137 Historically there have been other ways for experience based on 138 protocol implementations to feed back into the IETF process. Many 139 "implementation reports" have been published, in some cases several 140 years after the protocol was originally published. Providing 141 feedback to published protocols is a related goal, but different from 142 the current document's focus. Two notable examples of published 143 implementation reports are [RFC1369] and [RFC5080]. 145 2. The "Implementation Status" Section 147 Each Internet-Draft may contain a section entitled "Implementation 148 Status". This section, if it appears, should be located just before 149 the "Security Considerations" section and contain, for each existing 150 implementation, some or all of the following: 152 - The organization responsible for the implementation, if any. 154 - The implementation's name and/or a link to a web page where the 155 implementation or a description of it can be found. 157 - A brief general description. 159 - The implementation's level of maturity: research, prototype, 160 alpha, beta, production, widely used, etc. 162 - Coverage: which parts of the protocol specification are 163 implemented and which versions of the Internet-Draft were 164 implemented. 166 - Licensing: the terms under which the implementation can be used. 167 For example: proprietary, royalty licensing, freely distributable 168 with acknowledgement (BSD style), freely distributable with 169 requirement to redistribute source (General Public License (GPL) 170 style), and other (specify). 172 - Implementation experience: any useful information the implementers 173 want to share with the community. 175 - Contact information: ideally a person's name and email address, 176 but possibly just a URL or mailing list. 178 - The date when information about this particular implementation was 179 last updated. 181 In addition, this section can contain information about the 182 interoperability of any or all of the implementations, including 183 references to test-case descriptions and interoperability reports, 184 when such exist. 186 Working group chairs and area directors (ADs) are requested to ensure 187 that this section is not used as a marketing venue for specific 188 implementations. 190 Since this information is necessarily time dependent, it is 191 inappropriate for inclusion in a published RFC. The authors should 192 include a note to the RFC Editor requesting that the section be 193 removed before publication. 195 2.1. Introductory Text 197 The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation 198 Status section: 200 This section records the status of known implementations of the 201 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of 202 this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 203 [[RFC Editor: replace by RFC number]]. 204 The description of implementations in this section is 205 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in 206 progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any 207 individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the 208 IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the 209 information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. 210 This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a 211 catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers 212 are advised to note that other implementations may exist. 214 According to RFC [[RFC Editor: replace by RFC number]], 215 "this will allow reviewers and working 216 groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the 217 benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable 218 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented 219 protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups 220 to use this information as they see fit". 222 Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of 223 this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before 224 publication, as well as the reference to RFC [[RFC Editor: replace by 225 RFC number]]. 227 3. Alternative Formats 229 Sometimes it can be advantageous to publish the implementation status 230 separately from the base Internet-Draft, e.g., on the IETF wiki: 232 - When the Implementation Status section becomes too large to be 233 conveniently managed within the document. 235 - When a working group decides to have implementors, rather than 236 authors, keep the status of their implementations current. 238 - When a working group already maintains an active wiki and prefers 239 to use it for this purpose. 241 - If the working group decides that the information is still 242 valuable (and needs to be kept current) after the I-D is published 243 as an RFC, and the Implementation Status section had been removed 244 from it. 246 It is highly desirable for all readers of the Internet-Draft to be 247 made aware of this information. Initially, this can be done by 248 replacing the Implementation Status section's contents with a URL 249 pointing to the wiki. Later, the IETF Tools may support this 250 functionality, e.g., by including such a link in the HTML file of the 251 document, similar to the IPR link. 253 If the implementation status is published separately from the I-D, 254 then this information needs to be openly available without requiring 255 authentication, registration, or access controls if it is to have any 256 useful effects. 258 4. Benefits 260 Publishing the information about implementations provides the working 261 group with several benefits: 263 - Working group members, chairs, and ADs may use the information 264 provided to help prioritize the progress of I-Ds, e.g., when there 265 are several competing proposals to solve a particular problem. 267 - Similarly, the information is useful when deciding whether the 268 document should be progressed on a different track (individual 269 submission, Experimental, etc.). 271 - Making this information public and an explicit part of WG 272 deliberations will motivate participants to implement protocol 273 proposals, which in turn helps in discovering protocol flaws at an 274 early stage. 276 - Other participants can use the software to evaluate the usefulness 277 of protocol features, its correctness (to some degree), and other 278 properties, such as resilience and scalability. 280 - WG members may choose to perform interoperability testing with 281 known implementations, especially when they are publicly 282 available. 284 - In the case of open source, people may want to study the code to 285 better understand the protocol and its limitations, determine if 286 the implementation matches the protocol specification, and whether 287 the protocol specification has omissions or ambiguities. 289 - And lastly, some protocol features may be hard to understand, and 290 for such features, the mere assurance that they can be implemented 291 is beneficial. We note though that code should never be used in 292 lieu of a clear specification. 294 We do not specify here whether and to what degree working groups are 295 expected to prefer proposals that have "running code" associated with 296 them, over others that do not. 298 Working group chairs are invited to suggest this mechanism to 299 document editors in their working groups, and to draw the attention 300 of their working group participants to Implementation Status sections 301 where they exist. 303 5. Security Considerations 305 This is a process document; therefore, it does not have a direct 306 effect on the security of any particular IETF protocol. However, 307 better-reviewed protocols are likely to also be more secure. 309 6. Acknowledgements 311 We would like to thank Stephen Farrell, who reawakened community 312 interest in this topic. Several reviewers provided important input, 313 including Loa Andersson, Dave Crocker, Ned Freed, Joel M. Halpern, 314 Christer Holmberg, Denis Ovsienko, and Curtis Villamizar. 316 This document was originally prepared using the lyx2rfc tool, and we 317 would like to thank Nico Williams, its author. 319 7. Informative References 321 [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet 322 Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, 323 DOI 10.17487/RFC1264, October 1991, 324 . 326 [RFC1369] Kastenholz, F., "Implementation Notes and Experience for 327 the Internet Ethernet MIB", RFC 1369, 328 DOI 10.17487/RFC1369, October 1992, 329 . 331 [RFC4794] Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794, 332 DOI 10.17487/RFC4794, December 2006, 333 . 335 [RFC5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication 336 Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and 337 Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080, DOI 10.17487/RFC5080, December 338 2007, . 340 [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 341 Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, 342 DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013, 343 . 345 [Tao] Hoffman, P., ""The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the 346 Internet Engineering Task Force"", 2012, 347 . 349 Appendix A. Document History 351 A.1. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-02 353 - Implemented IESG review comments. 355 A.2. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-01 357 - Removed the IANA Considerations section. 359 - Implemented GENART comments. 361 A.3. draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00 363 Initial version. RFC 6982 as-is, without the experiment sections. 365 Authors' Addresses 367 Yaron Sheffer 368 Intuit 370 EMail: yaronf.ietf@gmail.com 372 Adrian Farrel 373 Juniper Networks 375 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk