*** draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis.txt Wed Sep 27 11:59:57 2006 --- draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.txt Wed Sep 27 05:45:52 2006 *************** *** 3,12 **** Network Working Group S. Bradner Internet-Draft Harvard University ! Obsoletes: E. Lear ! 2026,3667,3932,3978,3979 (if Cisco Systems GmbH ! approved) September 13, 2006 ! Expires: March 17, 2007 The Internet Standards Process -- Version 4 --- 3,11 ---- Network Working Group S. Bradner Internet-Draft Harvard University ! Obsoletes: 2026,3932 (if approved) E. Lear ! Expires: March 17, 2007 Cisco Systems GmbH ! September 13, 2006 The Internet Standards Process -- Version 4 *************** *** 47,54 **** the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this ! process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and ! copyright issues associated with the standards process, and the --- 46,54 ---- the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this ! process. ! ! *************** *** 57,67 **** Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! procedure to update the standards process. --- 57,128 ---- Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! Table of Contents + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.1. Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.2. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.3. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.2. Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.1. Technical Specification (TS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.2. Applicability Statement (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.3. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.1. Standards Track Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.2. Level One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.3. Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.5. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.6. Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.7. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs . . . . 17 + 4.8. Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 5.1. BCP Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 6.1. Standards Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 6.1.1. Initiation of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 6.1.3. Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 6.2. Advancing in the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 6.3. Revising a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 6.4. Retiring a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 6.5.1. Working Group Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 6.5.2. Process Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 6.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 7.1. Use of External Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 7.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 7.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.1.3. Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9. VARYING THE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 9.1. The Variance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 9.2. Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 2] + + Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + + + 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 14.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + Appendix A. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + Appendix B. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + Appendix C. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 43 *************** *** 103,114 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 164,226 ---- + Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 3] + + Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in + rough consensus and running code." + --Professor Dave Clark ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 164,170 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 276,282 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 220,226 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 332,338 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 246,257 **** Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow one- time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document Section ! 10 presents procedures for updating the rules contained in this memo. ! Section 11 presents the rules that are required to protect ! intellectual property rights in the context of the development and ! use of Internet Standards. Section 12 includes acknowledgments of ! some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 13 ! notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document. --- 358,369 ---- Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow one- time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document Section ! 10 references rules to protect intellectual property rights in the ! context of the development and use of Internet Standards. Section 11 ! includes acknowledgments of some of the people involved in creation ! of this document. Section 12 notes that security issues are not ! dealt with by this document. Section 13 contains IANA ! considerations. *************** *** 276,282 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 388,394 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 290,296 **** series. This archival series is the official publication channel for Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of ! Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other Internet document-retrieval systems. The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of --- 402,408 ---- series. This archival series is the official publication channel for Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of ! Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, rsync, World Wide Web, and other Internet document-retrieval systems. The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of *************** *** 301,307 **** publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the IAB. ! The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII --- 413,419 ---- publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the IAB. ! The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [3]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII *************** *** 326,338 **** specification (see section 3). Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' ! subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 438,450 ---- specification (see section 3). Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' ! subseries of the RFC series. [2] When a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 354,371 **** of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). - ******************************************************** - * * - * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * - * are standards track documents, and that not all * - * standards track documents reach the level of * - * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * - * which describe current practices have been given * - * the review and approval to become BCPs. See * - * RFC-1796 [6] for further information. * - * * - ******************************************************** 2.2. Internet-Drafts --- 466,481 ---- of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). + ******************************************************* + * * + * It is important to note that many RFCs are NOT * + * standards OR BCPs and are NOT endorsed in any way * + * by the IETF, the IRTF, the IAB, or the Internet * + * Society. Such RFCs are published independently * + * and are given only cursory review. * + * * + ******************************************************* 2.2. Internet-Drafts *************** *** 383,399 **** Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. ! An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; ! specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. ******************************************************** --- 493,510 ---- Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. ! An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification in ! any permanent way; they are meant to be ephemeral. Specifications ! are published only through the RFC mechanism described in the ! previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 subject to change or removal at any time. ******************************************************** *************** *** 444,450 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 555,562 ---- ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 493,513 **** The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of ! Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. An AS ! may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track than any ! standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1). For ! example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at - the Standard level. - 3.3. Requirement Levels An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each --- 605,622 ---- The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of ! Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 3.3. Requirement Levels An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each *************** *** 516,522 **** (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the ! TCP/IP Protocol Suite. (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally accepted --- 625,633 ---- (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the ! TCP/IP Protocol Suite. This requirement level is reserved for ! only the most critical Internet functions, and thus its use will ! be given the most scrutiny during the review process. (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally accepted *************** *** 524,540 **** applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is ! justified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET ! protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit ! from remote access. (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For example, the ! DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an environment where the ! DECNET protocol is used. As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the standards track or that have been retired from the standards --- 635,650 ---- applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is ! justified by some special circumstance. For example, DHCP client ! functions allow for ease of device configuration. (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For example, the ! OSPF MIB could be seen as valuable in an environment where the ! OSPF protocol is used. As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the standards track or that have been retired from the standards *************** *** 553,568 **** Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed - specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately --- 663,678 ---- Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related + TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed + specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately *************** *** 612,761 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK ! Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve ! through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". ! These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and ! "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in ! which specifications move along the standards track is described in ! section 6. ! ! Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, ! further evolution often occurs based on experience and the ! recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of ! Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet ! Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to ! indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of ! maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other ! specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. ! 4.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages ! are formally labeled "maturity levels". This section describes the ! maturity levels and the expected characteristics of specifications at ! each level. ! ! 4.2. Proposed Standard ! ! The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed ! Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a ! specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" level. ! A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved ! known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification ! before it advances. ! Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is ! required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed ! Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will ! usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard ! designation. The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience ! prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies ! behavior that may have significant operational impact on the ! Internet. ! ! A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with ! respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may ! waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance ! to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and ! necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. ! ! Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature ! specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain ! experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. ! However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if ! problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying ! implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive ! environment is not recommended. ! ! 4.3. Draft Standard ! ! A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable ! implementations from different code bases have been developed, and ! for which sufficient successful operational experience has been ! obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the ! purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally ! equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in ! which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology ! is required for implementation, the separate implementations must ! also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. ! Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating ! a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful. The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable ! implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard ! level only if those options or features are removed. ! ! The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific ! implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet ! Standard status along with documentation about testing of the ! interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must ! include information about the support of each of the individual ! options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the ! Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6) ! ! A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 13] ! ! Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an ! implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or ! more widespread field experience, since it is possible for ! implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate ! unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production ! environments. ! ! A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, ! and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems ! encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to ! deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive ! environment. ! ! 4.4. Internet Standard ! ! A specification for which significant implementation and successful ! operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the ! Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be ! referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of ! technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified ! protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet ! community. ! ! A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a ! number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. ! 4.5. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended --- 722,882 ---- ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK ! There are two levels of Internet Standards development, level one ! (L1) and level two (L2). These two levels indicate ability of ! multiple implementations to interoperate, stability of the ! specifications, and a general consensus of the community as to how ! the specifications are accepted. ! ! This marks a change from the previous version of the standards ! process. The rational for this change may be found in an appendix. ! The following mapping for documents published prior to this memo ! applies: ! ! ! Previous "Maturity" Current Level ! --------------------------------------- ! Proposed L1 ! Draft L2 ! Internet Standard L2 ! ! ! The RFC Editor is requested to assign standard numbers to those L1 TS ! specifications, in consultation with the IESG so that specifications ! are grouped appropriately. ! ! Once a group of one or more Technical Specifications are approved for ! level L1, the group is considered an Internet Standard, and an STD ! number is assigned by the RFC Editor, once the associated RFCs are ! published. To reach the optional level of L2, a rigorous review of ! the L1 specifications is required, as will be specified in Section 6. ! ! Even after a specification has been adopted at level L2, further ! evolution often occurs based on experience and the recognition of new ! requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of Internet ! standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet Standards ! with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to indicate ! the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A description of these ! statuses is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and specifications ! other that are not considered to be on the standards track. ! 4.1. Standards Track Levels Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages ! are formally labeled "standards levels". This section describes the ! levels and the expected characteristics of specifications at each level. ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 14] ! ! Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! ! ! 4.2. Level One ! ! The first stage of standardization is known as Level 1 (L1). A ! specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto ! the standards track at L1 before it can advance to L2. ! ! An L1 Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known ! design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification ! before it could advance to L2. ! While neither implementation nor operational experience is strictly ! required for the designation of a specification as an L1 Standard, ! such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a ! strong argument in favor of advancement. The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience ! prior to granting L1 Standard status to a specification that ! materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies ! behavior that may have significant operational impact on the ! Internet, or in cases where they believe the specification will be ! difficult to deploy. + An L1 Standard should have no known technical omissions with respect + to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may waive this + requirement in order to allow a specification to advance to the L1 + Standard state when it is considered to be useful and necessary (and + timely) even with known technical omissions. In such cases, the + specification will note such known omissions. + + Implementors should expect L1 Standards to change over time. It is + desirable to implement them in order to gain experience and to + validate, test, and clarify the specification. Since the content of + L1 Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions + are identified, such standards should be deployed with care in + disruption-sensitive environments. + + 4.3. Level 2 + + A specification from which at least three independent and + interoperable implementations from different code bases have been + developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience + has been obtained, may be elevated to Level 2 (L2). For the purposes + of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally equivalent + or interchangeable components of the system or process in which they + are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! for implementation, the separate implementations must also have ! resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. Elevation ! to L2 is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that ! the specification is mature and will be useful. The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable ! implementations, the specification may advance to Level 2 only if ! those options or features are removed. + Typically, when a TS is to be advanced to Level 2, a working group is + chartered for this purpose. In such cases, the Working Group chair + is responsible for documenting the specific implementations which + qualify the specification for Level 2 status along with documentation + about testing of the interoperation of these implementations. The + documentation must include information about the support of each of + the individual options and features. This documentation should be + submitted to the Area Director with the protocol action request. (see + Section 6) + + In those limited cases where it is felt that a working group is not + needed, an Area Director will designate someone who will provide the + appropriate documentation to indicate that a TS is ready to be + advanced. + A Level 2 Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an ! implementation. An L2 Standard is normally considered to be a final ! specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve ! specific problems encountered. Generally it is reasonable for ! vendors to deploy implementations of L2 Standards into a disruption ! sensitive environment. ! 4.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended *************** *** 767,773 **** "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels are not Internet Standards in any sense. ! 4.6. Experimental The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification --- 888,903 ---- "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels are not Internet Standards in any sense. ! ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 16] ! ! Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! ! ! 4.5. Experimental The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification *************** *** 777,793 **** adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working - - - - Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 14] - - Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - - Group, or it may be an individual contribution. ! 4.7. Informational An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an --- 907,915 ---- adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working Group, or it may be an individual contribution. ! 4.6. Informational An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an *************** *** 800,829 **** Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards ! Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the concurrence of the RFC Editor. ! 4.8. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status ! should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will ! publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already ! been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts ! they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are ! easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this ! publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor ! is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial ! suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or ! Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in ! the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs. To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the --- 922,958 ---- Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards ! Process by any of the provisions of BCP 78 and 79 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the concurrence of the RFC Editor. ! 4.7. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status ! should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. All such documents ! must first exist as Internet-Drafts. In order to differentiate these ! Internet-Drafts they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory ! so they are easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait four weeks ! after this publication for comments before proceeding further. The ! RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the ! editorial suitability of a document for publication with Experimental ! or Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, ! in the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs. To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor + + + + Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 17] + + Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + + will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the *************** *** 833,860 **** contribution to the Internet Standards Process. If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the - - - - Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 15] - - Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - - IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an ! established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an ! Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG ! may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or ! immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to ! make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using the process described in section 6.1.1. ! 4.9. Historic A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is --- 962,987 ---- contribution to the Internet Standards Process. If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an ! established IETF effort (be that standard or experimental), or (c) ! the IESG considers that the document specifies or recommends behavior ! that could be harmful to the Internet in a deployment, the document ! may still be published at the discretion of the RFC Editor. However, ! in such cases, the IESG may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into ! the RFC either in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo" ! section in order to make the circumstances of its publication clear ! to readers. The purpose of this restriction is not to prohibit ! points of view that differ from that of the IESG, but to protect ! against misleading or dangerous behavior, either by authors or by ! implementations. Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using the process described in section 6.1.1. ! 4.8. Historic A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is *************** *** 862,888 **** word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is historical.) ! Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on ! other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity ! level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced ! specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! --- 989,1000 ---- word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is historical.) ! Note: Standards track specifications must not depend on non-standards ! track specifications, other than those referenced specifications from ! other standards bodies (See Section 7). Furthermore, it is strongly ! recommended that L2 standards not depend on L1 standards. Where such ! cases exist, they should be clearly noted as a risk in the L2 ! specification. *************** *** 892,898 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1004,1010 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 938,944 **** 5.1. BCP Review Process Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs ! are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and immediate instantiation. --- 1050,1056 ---- 5.1. BCP Review Process Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs ! are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the two stage standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and immediate instantiation. *************** *** 948,954 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1060,1066 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1004,1010 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1116,1122 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1043,1049 **** Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to ! the IESG. 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval --- 1155,1165 ---- Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to ! the IESG. As a practical matter, the IESG requires that individual ! submissions be sponsored by an Area Director. The wisdom behind this ! is simply that if the author(s) cannot find at least one AD to ! support a draft, they certainly not be able to find support for ! advancement. 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval *************** *** 1054,1070 **** of the specification is consistent with that expected for the maturity level to which the specification is recommended. - In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these - determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by - the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact - ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the specification. --- 1170,1185 ---- of the specification is consistent with that expected for the maturity level to which the specification is recommended. ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these + determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by + the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the specification. *************** *** 1111,1126 **** specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. - An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall - appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This - ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards actions. --- 1226,1240 ---- specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall + appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards actions. *************** *** 1134,1163 **** that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards track. ! A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at ! least six (6) months. ! ! A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least ! four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, ! whichever comes later. ! ! These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for ! community review without severely impacting timeliness. These ! intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the action. ! A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it ! advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall ! determine the scope and significance of the revision to the ! specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the ! recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant ! revision may require that the specification accumulate more ! experience at its current maturity level before progressing. ! Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly, ! the IESG may recommend that the revision be treated as a new ! document, re- entering the standards track at the beginning. Change of status shall result in republication of the specification as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at --- 1248,1268 ---- that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards track. ! A specification shall remain at Level 1 for at least one year. This ! minimum period is intended to ensure adequate opportunity for ! community review without severely impacting timeliness. This ! interval shall be measured from the date of publication of the corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the action. ! When a specification is advanced from Level 1 to Level 2, it may be ! (indeed, is likely to be) revised. The IESG shall determine the ! scope and significance of the revision to the specification, and, if ! necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action. Minor ! revisions are expected, but a significant revision may require that ! the specification accumulate more experience at Level 1 before ! progressing. Change of status shall result in republication of the specification as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at *************** *** 1169,1212 **** technical error that does not represent a change in overall function of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum ! time-at-level clock. ! ! When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet ! Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for ! twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter ! until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of ! the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the ! usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG ! shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, ! at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification ! at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This ! decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the ! IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an ! opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a ! legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an ! administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 6.3. Revising a Standard A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a ! completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the ! Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which ! will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both ! versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements ! of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between ! the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the ! text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an ! Applicability Statement; see section 3.2). 6.4. Retiring a Standard --- 1274,1321 ---- technical error that does not represent a change in overall function of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with + a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum + time-at-level clock. + When a standards-track specification has not reached the an L2 + Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for + twenty-four (24) months or at any time thereafter, the IESG may at + its sole discretion and in a manner of its choosing review the ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! viability of the standardization effort responsible for that ! specification and the usefulness of the technology. Following each ! such review, the IESG shall approve termination or continuation of ! the development effort, at the same time the IESG shall decide to ! maintain the specification at the same maturity level or to move it ! to Historic status. This decision shall be communicated to the IETF ! by electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list to allow the ! Internet community an opportunity to comment. This provision is not ! intended to threaten a legitimate and active Working Group effort, ! but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for terminating a ! moribund effort. 6.3. Revising a Standard A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a ! completely new specification. A new L1 Standard will retire an old ! L1 Standard. However, only a new L2 Standard can retire an old L2 ! Standard. Retired standards are moved to Historic status. Once the ! new version has reached the Standard level, it will usually replace ! the previous version, which will be moved to Historic status. ! However, in some cases both versions may remain as Internet Standards ! to honor the requirements of an installed base. In this situation, ! the relationship between the previous and the new versions must be ! explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another ! appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see section ! 3.2). 6.4. Retiring a Standard *************** *** 1225,1241 **** 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be - made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when - even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with --- 1334,1350 ---- 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As + much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be + made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when + even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with *************** *** 1279,1299 **** not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with respect to all questions of technical merit. ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - 6.5.2. Process Failures - - This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to - ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and - the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action --- 1388,1406 ---- not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with respect to all questions of technical merit. + 6.5.2. Process Failures + This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to + ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and + the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action *************** *** 1301,1307 **** If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the ! ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the --- 1408,1414 ---- If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the ! IESG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the *************** *** 1337,1355 **** the outcome of its review. The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final - Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 24] - - Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! with respect to all aspects of the dispute. - 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure - All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the facts of the dispute. All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public --- 1444,1462 ---- the outcome of its review. The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final + with respect to all aspects of the dispute. + 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure + All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 26] ! ! Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 facts of the dispute. All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public *************** *** 1396,1402 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1503,1514 ---- ! ! ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1443,1449 **** An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards ! incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available online. --- 1555,1561 ---- An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards ! incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII". [4] Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available online. *************** *** 1452,1458 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1564,1570 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1461,1469 **** Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the ! requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary specification ! is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be ! published as an Informational RFC. The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary specification over technically equivalent and competing --- 1573,1581 ---- Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the ! requirements of BCPs 78 and 79. If the other proprietary ! specification is not widely and readily available, the IESG may ! request that it be published as an Informational RFC. The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary specification over technically equivalent and competing *************** *** 1475,1481 **** An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with ! the requirements of section 10, and (2) change control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for the specification or for specifications derived from the original specification. --- 1587,1593 ---- An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with ! the requirements of BCPs 78 and 79, and (2) change control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for the specification or for specifications derived from the original specification. *************** *** 1508,1514 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1620,1626 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1555,1570 **** responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts ! directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole ! purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards ! activity and thus are not retrievable except in special ! circumstances. ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1667,1682 ---- responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts ! directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the purpose ! of preserving an historical record of Internet standards activity. ! The Secretariat may make such drafts available as directed by a court ! order, or as otherwise directed by the IAD in order to further the ! purposes of the IETF, IESG, IAB, or Internet Society. ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1582,1588 **** met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a ! new version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are used for any other BCP. In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures --- 1694,1700 ---- met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a ! new version. Updating this document uses similar open procedures as are used for any other BCP. In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures *************** *** 1620,1626 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 1732,1738 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 1676,1842 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ! 10.1. General Policy - In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the - intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at - large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. - - 10.2. Confidentiality Obligations - - No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality - or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part - of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of - any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. - - 10.3. Rights and Permissions - - In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in - various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the - dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand - any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions. - - 10.3.1. All Contributions - - By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the - contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions - on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he - represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the - contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in - addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the - actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was - made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on - his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and - any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. - - 1. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to - copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may - be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he - represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in - the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, - royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the - IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license - includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the - contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are - based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the - license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the - license of the original contribution. - Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 31] - - Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty - to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. - 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and - address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he - represents (if any). - - 4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge - major contributors. - - 5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the - owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that - no information in the contribution is confidential and that the - ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any - information in the contribution. - - 6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of - any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the - contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the - contributor. The contributor does not represent that he - personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and - intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization - he represents (if any) or third parties. - - 7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the - contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and - agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the - contributor. - - 8. By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet - Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open - and free access to IETF documents for which license and right - have been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this - section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is - perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its - successors or assigns. - - 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents - - (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary - rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on - the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the - IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the - document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or - claimed rights. Where implementations are required before - advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by - statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with - any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the - Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 32] - - Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 - purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification. - (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the - existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed - copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the - fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no - position on the validity or scope of any such rights. - - (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the - IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant - of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG - of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any - party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and - distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or - distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) - under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The - Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect to - which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF - Executive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure - shall not affect advancement of a specification along the - standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a - delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The - results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, - and made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of - the results be included in any RFC published containing the - specification. - - 10.3.3. Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms - - The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance - of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a - technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the - normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to - verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated - implementations of the specification that are required to advance - from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by - different organizations or individuals or if the "significant - implementation and successful operational experience" required to - advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the - assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, - non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the - Last-Call period. - 10.4. Notices --- 1788,1842 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ! The previous version of this memo specified Intellectual Property ! Rights of individuals and the Internet community. Experience has ! shown that this is still an evolving area. The Internet process ! specified in this memo incorporates by reference BCPs 78 and 79. ! These are important documents that should be well understood by ! participants prior to submitting specifications for standardization. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *************** *** 1849,1900 **** Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: ! "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any ! intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to ! pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described ! in this document or the extent to which any license under such ! rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent ! that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. ! Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in ! standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found ! in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for ! publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, ! or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or ! permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors ! or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF ! Secretariat." ! ! (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its ! attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any ! intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. ! For this purpose, each standards document shall include the ! following invitation: ! ! "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention ! any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other ! proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required ! to practice this standard. Please address the information to the ! IETF Executive Director." ! ! (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included ! in all ISOC standards-related documentation: "Copyright (C) The ! Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and ! translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and ! derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist ! in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and ! distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, ! provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are ! included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this ! document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by ! removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet ! Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the ! purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the ! procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards ! process must be followed, or as required to translate it into ! languages other than English. The limited permissions granted ! above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet ! Society or its successors or assigns. --- 1849,1900 ---- Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ! ! There have been a number of people involved with the development of ! the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. ! The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 ! before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). ! The next version lived on in RFC 2026 for over ten years, something ! that amazes the current authors. In particular, thanks go to Lyman ! Chapin, Phill Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the ! previous versions, to Jon Postel, Dave Crocker, John Stewart, Robert ! Elz, and Steve Coya for their inputs to those versions, and to Sam ! Hartman, Joel Halpern, Fred Baker, Spencer Dawkins, and Leslie Daigle ! for their input into this version (for both what is there and what is ! not). ! ! In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of ! the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various ! incarnations of the POISED Working Group. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *************** *** 1905,1928 **** Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! This document and the information contained herein is provided on ! an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ! ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR ! IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF ! THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED ! WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR ! PURPOSE." ! ! (D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of proprietary ! rights claimed with respect to a standards track document, or the ! technology described or referenced therein, such document shall ! contain the following notice: ! ! ! "The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights ! claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained ! in this document. For more information consult the online list ! of claimed rights." --- 1905,1928 ---- Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ! ! Security issues are not discussed in this memo. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *************** *** 1961,1983 **** Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - There have been a number of people involved with the development of - the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. - The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 - before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). - Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill - Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, - to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to - Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their - reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and - to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input - on the final version. - In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of - the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various - incarnations of the POISED Working Group. --- 1961,1983 ---- Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 13. IANA Considerations ! ! While there are no specific IANA considerations in this memo, when ! the IESG chooses to retire a standard based on the guidance contained ! here-in, it should provide IANA with specific requests relating to ! those standards. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *************** *** 2017,2030 **** Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ! Security issues are not discussed in this memo. --- 2017,2040 ---- Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! 14. References ! 14.1. Normative References + [1] Reynolds, J. and S. Ginoza, "Internet Official Protocol + Standards", STD 1, RFC 3700, July 2004. + [2] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, + March 1992. + [3] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", + RFC 2223, October 1997. + 14.2. Informational References + [4] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character Set - + 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange", + ANSI X3.4, 1986. *************** *** 2058,2079 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! Appendix A. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS xxx IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists of Working Groups related to a general topic such as --- 2068,2135 ---- + Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 37] + + Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 + Appendix A. Changes from Previous Versions + The following changes have been made to this document since RFC 2026: + o The standards track has been revamped to be a two-step process, + where the second step is optional. The reasoning behind this is + that few if any documents were making it beyond the first step in + the standards process. A second step remains for those who wish + to demonstrate that a particular standard is very stable. The + authors expect further review to occur as we get experience with + the new process. + + o All Technical Specifications approved by the IESG are now + Standards. In practice, nobody treated a Proposed Standard as + anything other than a standard, and so we are recognizing this + fact. + + o A mapping of old to new is discussed. + + o The IESG no longer is required to review standards that have not + achieved L2 status. These timelines may have made sense ten years + ago, but in practice since then there has only been a single + review. At its sole discretion and in a manner of its choosing, + the IESG may review specifications below L2 after a period of 24 + months. + o Intellectual Property Rights have been moved out of the document + and incorporated by reference. + o Portions of text have been revised to reflect the current state of + the Internet. References to DECNET and FTP have been removed. + o All submissions to the RFC Editor must be in the form of Internet- + Drafts. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! Appendix B. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS xxx IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists of Working Groups related to a general topic such as *************** *** 2124,2135 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! Appendix B. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ANSI: American National Standards Institute --- 2180,2191 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 ! Appendix C. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ANSI: American National Standards Institute *************** *** 2180,2186 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 2236,2242 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 2236,2242 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 2292,2298 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 2292,2298 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 --- 2348,2354 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 42] Internet-Draft Internet Standards Process September 2006 *************** *** 2348,2352 **** ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 42] --- 2404,2408 ---- ! Bradner & Lear Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 43]