home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
drafts
/
draft_ietf_q_t
/
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1997-05-29
|
44KB
|
1,047 lines
Network Working Group G. Scott, Editor
INTERNET DRAFT Defense Information Systems Agency
May 1997
Guide for Internet Standards Writers
<draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in
progress."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific
Rim).
Distribution of this document is unlimited.
This Internet Draft expires on 5 December 1997.
Abstract
This document is a guide for Internet standard writers. It defines
those characteristics that make standards coherent, unambiguous, and
easy to interpret. Also, it singles out usage believed to have led
to unclear specifications, resulting in non-interoperable
interpretations in the past. These guidelines are to be used with
RFC 1543, "Instructions to RFC Authors."
This version of the document is a draft. It is intended to generate
further discussion and addition by the STDGUIDE working group.
Please send comments to stdguide@midnight.com.
CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS DRAFT
Section 2.10 was rewritten to avoid conflict with BCP 14/RFC 2119,
"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level."
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Discussion of Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Level of Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Protocol Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Decision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7 Response to Out of Specification Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.8 The Liberal/Conservative Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.9 Handling of Protocol Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.10 Indicating Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.11 Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.12 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.13 Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.14 Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.15 Network Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.16 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Specific Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1 Packet Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 State Machine Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Document Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8 Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1 Introduction
This document is a guide for Internet standard writers. It offers
guidelines on how to write a standards-track document with clarity,
precision, and completeness. These guidelines are based on both
prior successful and unsuccessful IETF specification experiences.
These guidelines are to be used with RFC 1543, "Instructions to RFC
Authors," or its update. Note that some guidelines may not apply in
certain situations. The process for standardizing protocols and
procedures is given in BCP 9/RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards
Process -- Revision 3."
The goal is to increase the possibility that multiple implementations
of a protocol will interoperate. Writing specifications to these
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
guidelines will not guarantee interoperability. However, a
recognized barrier to the creation of interoperable protocol
implementations is unclear specifications.
Many will benefit from having well-written protocol specifications.
Implementors will have a better chance to conform to the protocol
specification. Protocol testers can use the specification to derive
unambiguous testable statements. Purchasers and users of the
protocol will have a better understanding of its capabilities.
2 General Guidelines
It is important that multiple readers and implementors of a standard
have the same understanding of a document. To this end, information
should be orderly and detailed. The following are general guidelines
intended to help in the production of such a document. The IESG may
require that all or some of the following sections appear in a
standards track document.
2.1 Discussion of Security
If the Internet is to achieve its full potential in commercial,
governmental, and personal affairs, it must assure users that their
information transfers are free from tampering or compromise. Well-
written security sections in standards-track documents can help
promote the confidence level required. For an implementor will find
it easier to provide the security measures specified. While users
will understand the security measures, and so have a higher level of
trust in the Internet. Above all, new protocols and practices must
not worsen overall Internet security.
A significant threat to the Internet are those individuals who are
motivated and capable of exploiting circumstances, events, or
vulnerabilities of the system to cause harm. Also, deliberate or
inadvertent user behavior may expose the system to attack or
exploitation. The harm could range from disrupting or denying
network service, to damaging user systems. Additionally, information
disclosure could provide the means to attack another system, or
reveal patterns of behavior that could be used to harm an individual,
organization, or network. This is a particular concern with
standards that define a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB).
Standards authors must accept that the protocol they specify will be
subject to attack. They are responsible for determining what attacks
are possible, and for detailing the nature of the attacks in the
document. Otherwise, they must convincingly argue that attack is not
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
realistic in a specific environment, and restrict the use of the
protocol to that environment.
This discussion of the threat model and other assumptions should
appear early in the standard. Doing so will establish a basis for
the further discussion of security throughout the document.
After the document has exhaustively identified the security risks the
protocol is exposed to, the authors must formulate and detail a
defense against those attacks. They must discuss the applicable
countermeasures employed, or the risk the user is accepting by using
the protocol. The countermeasures may be provided by a protocol
mechanism or by reliance on external mechanisms. Authors should be
knowledgeable of existing security mechanisms, and reuse them if
practical. When cryptographic algorithms are use, the protocol
should be written to permit its substitution with another algorithm
in the future. Finally, the authors should discuss implementation
hints or guidelines, e.g., how to deal with untrustworthy data or
peer systems.
Additionally, the effects the security measures have on the
protocol's use and performance should be discussed. Security
measures will have an impact on the environment they are used in.
Perhaps users will now be locked out of portions of the Internet
previously open to them, or users will experience a degradation in
the speed of service. The user may decided to accept a greater risk
in exchange for improved access or service. But the user must be
able to make an informed decision. They need to understand the risks
they are facing and the costs of reducing their risk.
The discussion of security can be concentrated in the Security
Considerations section of the document, or throughout the document
where it is relevant to particular parts of the specification. An
advantage of the second approach is that it ensures security is an
integral part of the protocol's development, rather than something
that is a follow-on or secondary effort. If security is discussed
throughout the document, the Security Considerations section must
summarized and make reference to the appropriate specification
sections. This will insure that the protocol's security measures are
emphasized to implementor and user both.
Within the Security Considerations section a discussion of the path
not taken may be appropriate. There may be several security
mechanisms that were not selected for a variety of reasons: cost or
difficulty of implementation; ineffectiveness for a given network
environment; or export control. By listing the mechanisms they did
not use and the reasons, editors can demonstrate that the protocol's
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
WG gave security the necessary thought. Also, this gives the
protocol's users the information they need to consider whether one of
the non-selected mechanisms would be better suited to their
particular requirements.
Currently, a RFC is being considered that would give guidance on how
to do a security analysis. It will provide a listing of classes of
attacks, and methods of analysis that are useful in developing
countermeasures to them. Standards authors should obtain a current
copy of this RFC to assist them in their preparation of the security
portion of the standard.
Finally, it is no longer acceptable that Security Considerations
sections consist solely of statements to the effect that security was
not considered in preparing the standard.
Some examples of Security Considerations sections are found in
STD 33/RFC 1350, STD 51/RFC 1662, and STD 53/RFC 1939.
2.2 Protocol Description
Standards track documents must include a description of the protocol.
This description must address the protocol's purpose, intended
functions, services it provides, and, the arena, circumstances, or
any special considerations of the protocol's use.
The authors of a protocol specification will have a great deal of
knowledge as to the reason for the protocol. However, the reader is
more likely to have general networking knowledge and experience,
rather than expertise in a particular protocol. An explanation of
it's purpose and use will give the reader a reference point for
understanding the protocol, and where it fits in the Internet. The
Draft Standard RFC 1583 was recommended to the STDGUIDE working guide
as providing a good example of this in it's "Protocol Overview"
section.
The protocol's general description should also provide information on
the relationship between the different parties to the protocol.
This can be done by showing typical packet sequences.
This also applies to the algorithms used by a protocol. A detailed
description of the algorithms or citation of readily available
references that give such a description is necessary.
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
2.3 Target Audience
RFCs have been written with many different purposes, ranging from the
technical to the administrative. Those written as standards should
clearly identify the intended audience, for example, designers,
implementors, testers, help desk personnel, educators, end users, or
others. If there are multiple audiences being addressed in the
document, what sections are for each audience needs to be identified.
The goal is to help the reader discover and focus on what they have
turned to the document for, and avoid what they may find confusing,
diverting, or extraneous.
2.4 Level of Detail
The author should consider what level of descriptive detail best
conveys the protocol's intent. Concise text has several advantages.
It makes the document easier to read. Such text reduces the chance
for conflict between different portions of the specification. The
reader can readily identify the required protocol mechanisms in the
standard. Also, it makes it easier to identify the requirements for
protocol implementation. A disadvantage of concise descriptions is
that a reader may not fully comprehend the reasoning behind the
protocol, and thus make assumptions that will lead to implementation
errors.
Longer descriptions may be necessary to explain purpose, background,
rationale, implementation experience, or to provide tutorial
information. This helps the reader understand the protocol. Yet
several dangers exist with lengthy text. Finding the protocol
requirements in the text is difficult or confusing. The same
mechanism may have multiple descriptions, which leads to
misinterpretations or conflict. Finally, it is more difficult to
comprehend, a consideration as English is not the native language of
the many worldwide readers of IETF standards.
One approach is to divide the standard into sections: one describing
the protocol concisely, while another section consists of explanatory
text. The STD 3/RFC 1122/RFC 1123 and Draft Standard RFC 1583
provides examples of this method.
2.5 Protocol Versions
Often the standard is specifying a new version of an existing
protocol. In such a case, the authors should detail the differences
between the previous version and the new version. This should
include the rationale for the changes, for example, implementation
experience, changes in technology, responding to user demand, etc.
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
2.6 Decision History
In standards development, reaching consensus requires making
difficult choices. These choices are made through working group
discussions or from implementation experience. By including the
basis for a contentious decision, the author can prevent future
revisiting of these disagreements later, when the original parties
have moved on. Also, the knowledge of the "why" is as useful to an
implementor as the description of "how." For example, the
alternative not taken may have been simpler to implement, so
including the reasons behind the choice may prevent future
implementors from taking nonstandard shortcuts.
2.7 Response to Out of Specification Behavior
The STDGUIDE working group recommends that detail description of the
actions taken in case of behavior that is deviant from or exceeds the
specification be included. This is an area where implementors often
differ in opinion as to the appropriate response. By specifying a
common response, the standard author can reduce the risk that
different implementations will come in to conflict.
The standard should describe responses to behavior explicitly
forbidden or out of the boundaries defined by the specification. Two
possible approaches to such cases are discarding, or invoking
error-handling mechanisms. If discarding is chosen, detailing the
disposition may be necessary. For instance, treat dropped frames as
if they were never received, or reset an existing connection or
adjacency state.
The specification should describe actions taken when critical
resource or performance scaling limits are exceeded. This is not
necessary for every case. It is necessary for cases where a risk of
network degradation or operational failure exists. In such cases, a
consistent behavior between implementations is necessary.
2.8 The Liberal/Conservative Rule
A rule, first stated in STD 5/RFC 791, recognized as having benefits
in implementation robustness and interoperability is:
"Be liberal in what you accept, and
conservative in what you send."
Or establish restrictions on what a protocol transmits, but be able
to deal with every conceivable error received. Caution is urged in
applying this approach in standards track protocols. It has in the
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
past lead to conflicts between vendors when interoperability fails.
The sender accuses the receiver of failing to be liberal enough, and
the receiver accuses the sender of not being conservative enough.
Therefore, the author is obligated to provide extensive detail on
send and receive behavior.
To avoid any confusion between the two, recommend that standard
authors specify send and receive behavior separately. The
description of reception will require the most detailing. For
implementations will be expected to accept any packet from the
network without failure or malfunction. Therefore, the actions taken
to achieve that result, need to be laid out in the protocol
specification. Standard authors should consider not just how to
survive on the network, but achieve the highest level of cooperation
possible to limit the amount of network disruption. The appearance
of undefined information or conditions must not cause a network or
host failure. This requires specification on how to attempt
acceptance of most of the packets. Two approaches are available,
either using as much of the packet's content as possible, or invoking
error procedures. The author should specify a dividing line on when
to take which approach.
A case for consideration is that of a routing protocol, where
acceptance of flawed information can cause network failure. For
protocols such as this, the specification should identify packets
that could have differing interpretations and mandate that they be
either rejected completely or the nature of the attempt to recover
some information from them. For example, routing updates that
contain more data than the tuple count shows. The protocol authors
should consider whether some trailing data can be accepted as
additional routes, or to reject the entire packet as suspect because
it is non-conformant.
2.9 Handling of Protocol Options
Specifications with many optional features increase the complexity of
the implementation and the chance of non-interoperable
implementations. The danger is that different implementations may
specify some combination of options that are unable to interoperate
with each other.
As the document moves along the standard track, implementation
experience shall determine the need for each option. Implementation
sahll show whether the option should be a mandatory part of the
protocol or remains an option. If an option is not implemented as
the document advances, it must be removed from the protocol before it
reaches draft standard status.
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
Therefore, options shall only be present in a protocol to address a
real requirement. For example, options can support future
extensibility of the protocol, a particular market, e.g., the
financial industry, or a specific network environment, e.g., a
network constrained by limited bandwidth. They shall not be included
as a means to "buy-off" a minority opinion. Omission of the optional
item shall have no interoperability consequences for the
implementation that does so.
One possible approach is to document protocol options in a separate
document. Doing so would make it clear that the options are not
integral to the implementation of the protocol, and would keep the
main protocol specification clean. Regardless of whether they appear
within the specification or in a separate document, the text shall
discuss the full implications of either using the option or not, and
the case for choosing either course. As part of this, the author
needs to consider and describe how the options are intended to be
used alongside other protocols. The text must also specify the
default conditions of all options. For security checking options the
default condition is on or enabled.
There may be occasions when mutually exclusive options appear within
a protocol. That is, the implementation of an optional feature
precludes the implementation of the other optional feature. For
clarity, the author needs to state when to implement one or the
other, what the effect of choosing one over the other is, and what
problems the implementor or user may face. The choice of one or the
other options shall have no interoperability consequences between
multiple implementations.
2.10 Indicating Requirement Levels
The BCP 14/RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Level," defines several words that are necessary for
writing a standards track document. Editors of standards track
documents must not deviate from the definitions provided as they are
intended to identify interoperability requirements or limit
potentially harmful behavior. The capitalization of these words is
the accepted norm, and can help in identifying an unintentional or
unreasonable requirement. These words have been used in several RFCs
the first instances being STD 3/RFC 1122/RFC 1123.
2.11 Notational Conventions
Formal syntax notations can be used to define complicated protocol
concepts or data types, and to specify values of these data types.
This permits the protocol to be written without concern on how the
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
implementation is constructed, or how the data type is represented
during transfer. The specification is simplified because it can be
presented as "axioms" that will be proven by implementation.
The formal specification of the syntax used should be referenced in
the text of the standard. Any extensions, subsets, alterations, or
exceptions to that formal syntax should be defined within the
standard.
The STD 11/RFC 822 provides an example of this. In RFC 822 (Section
2 and Appendix D) the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) meta-language was
extended to make its representation smaller and easier to understand.
Another example is STD 16/RFC 1155 (Section 3.2) where a subset of
the Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) is defined.
The author of a standards track protocol needs to consider several
things before they use a formal syntax notation. Is the formal
specification language being used parseable by an existing machine?
If no parser exists, is there enough information provided in the
specification to permit the building of a parser? If not, it is
likely the reader will not have enough information to decide what the
notation means. Also, the author should remember machine parseable
syntax is often unreadable by humans, and can make the specification
excessive in length. Therefore, syntax notations cannot take the
place of a clearly written protocol description.
2.12 IANA Considerations
The common use of the Internet standard track protocols by the
Internet community requires that the unique values be assigned to the
parameter fields. An IETF WG does not have the authority to assign
these values for the protocol it is working on. The Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the central coordinator for the
assignment of unique parameter values for Internet protocols, and is
responsible for establishing the procedures by which it does so. The
authors of a developing protocol that use a link, socket, port,
protocol, etc., need to coordinate with the IANA the rules and
procedures to be used to register constants and tags. This
coordination needs to be completed prior to submitting the internet
draft to the standards track. For further information on parameter
assignment and current assignments, authors can reference STD 2/RFC
1700, "Assigned Numbers."
2.13 Network Management Considerations
When relevant, each standard needs to discuss how to manage the
protocol being specified. This management process should be
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
compatible with the current IETF Standard management protocol. Also
a MIB must be defined within the standard or in a companion document.
The MIB must be compatible with current SMI and parseable using a
tool such as SMICng. Where management or a MIB is not necessary this
section of the standard should explain the reason it is not relevant
to the protocol.
2.14 Scalability Considerations
The standard should establish the limitations on the scale of use,
e.g., tens of millions of sessions, gigabits per second, etc., and
establish limits on the resources used, e.g, round trip time,
computing resources, etc. This is important because it establishes
the ability of the network to accommodate the number of users and the
complexity of their relations. The STD 53/RFC 1939 has an example of
such a section. If this is not applicable to the protocol an
explanation of why not should be included.
2.15 Network Stability
A standard should discuss the relationship between network topology
and convergence behavior. As part of this, any topology which would
be troublesome for the protocol should be identified. Additionally,
the specification should address any possible destablizing events,
and how the protocol resists or recovers from them. The purpose is
to insure that the network will stabilize, in a timely fashion, after
a change, and that a combination of errors or events will not plunge
the network into chaos. The STD 34/RFC 1058, as an example, has
sections which discuss how that protocol handles the affects of
changing topology.
The obvious case this would apply to is a routing protocol. However,
an application protocol could also have dynamic behavior that would
affect the network. For example, a messaging protocol could suddenly
dump a large number of messages onto the network. Therefore, editors
of an application protocol will have to consider possible impacts to
network stability and convergence behavior.
2.16 Glossary
Every standards track RFC should have a glossary, as words can have
many meanings. By defining any new words introduced, the author can
avoid confusing or misleading the implementer. The definition should
appear on the word's first appearance within the text of the protocol
specification, and in a separate glossary section.
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
It is likely that definition of the protocol will rely on many words
frequently used in IETF documents. All authors must be knowledgeable
of the common accepted definitions of these frequently used words.
FYI 18/RFC 1983, "Internet Users' Glossary," provides definitions
that are specific to the Internet. Any deviation from these
definitions by authors is strongly discouraged. If circumstances
require deviation, an author should state that he is altering the
commonly accepted definition, and provide rationale as to the
necessity of doing so. The altered definition must be included in
the Glossary section.
If the author uses the word as commonly defined, she does not have to
include the definition in the glossary. As a minimum, FYI 18/RFC
1983 should be referenced as a source.
3 Specific Guidelines
The following are guidelines on how to present specific technical
information in standards.
3.1 Packet Diagrams
Most link, network, and transport layer protocols have packet
descriptions. The STDGUIDE working group recommends that packet
diagrams be included in the standard, as they are very helpful to the
reader. The preferred form for packet diagrams is a sequence of long
words in network byte order, with each word horizontal on the page
and bit numbering at the top:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Prio. | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In cases where a packet is strongly byte-aligned rather than
word-aligned (e.g., when byte-boundary variable-length fields are
used), display packet diagrams in a byte-wide format. The author can
use different height boxes for short and long words, and broken boxes
for variable-length fields:
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Address +
...
+ (N bytes) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 2-byte field +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2 Summary Tables
The specifications of some protocols are particularly lengthy,
sometimes covering a hundred pages or more. In such cases the
inclusion of a summary table can reduce the risk of conformance
failure by an implementation through oversight. A summary table
itemizes what in a protocol is mandatory, optional, or prohibited.
Summary tables do not guarantee conformance, but serve to assist an
implementor in checking that they have addressed all protocol
features.
The summary table will consist of, as a minimum, four (4) columns:
Protocol Feature, Section Reference, Status, and
References/Footnotes. The author may add columns if they further
explain or clarify the protocol.
In the Protocol Feature column describe the feature, for example, a
command word. We recommend grouping series of related transactions
under descriptive headers, for example, RECEPTION.
Section reference directs the implementor to the section, paragraph,
or page that describes the protocol feature in detail.
Status indicates whether the feature is mandatory, optional, or
prohibited. The author can either use a separate column for each
possibility, or a single column with appropriate codes. These codes
need to be defined at the start of the summary table to avoid
confusion. Possible status codes:
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
M - must
M - mandatory
MN - must not
O - optional
S - should
SN - should not
X - prohibited
In the References/Footnotes column authors can point to other RFCs
that are necessary to consider in implementing this protocol feature,
or any footnotes necessary to explain the implementation further.
The STD 3/RFC 1122/RFC 1123 provides examples of summary tables.
3.3 State Machine Descriptions
A convenient method of presenting a protocol's behavior is as a
state-machine model. That is, a protocol can be described by a
series of states resulting from a command, operation, or transaction.
State-machine models define the variables and constants that
establish a state, the events that cause state transitions, and the
actions that result from those transitions. Through these models, an
understanding of the protocol's dynamic operation as sequence of
state transitions that occur for any given event is possible.
State transitions can be detailed by diagrams, tables, or time lines.
Note that state-machine models are never to take the place of
detailed text description of the specification. They are adjuncts to
the text. The protocol specification shall always take precedence in
the case of a conflict.
When using a state transition diagram, show each possible protocol
state as a box connected by state transition arcs. The author should
label each arc with the event that causes the transition, and, in
parentheses, any actions taken during the transition. The STD 5/RFC
1112 provides an example of such a diagram. As ASCII text is the
preferred storage format for RFCs, only simple diagrams are possible.
Tables can summarize more complex or extensive state transitions.
In a state transition table, read events vertically and states
horizontally. The form, action/new state, represents state
transitions and actions. Commas separate multiple actions, and
succeeding lines are used as required. The authors should present
multiple actions in the order they must be executed, if relevant.
Letters that follow the state indicate an explanatory footnote. The
dash ('-') indicates an illegal transition. The STD 51/RFC 1661
provides an example of such a state transition table. The initial
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
columns and rows of that table are below as an example:
| State
| 0 1 2 3 4 5
Events| Initial Starting Closed Stopped Closing Stopping
------+-----------------------------------------------------------
Up | 2 irc,scr/6 - - - -
Down | - - 0 tls/1 0 1
Open | tls/1 1 irc,scr/6 3r 5r 5r
Close| 0 tlf/0 2 2 4 4
|
TO+ | - - - - str/4 str/5
TO- | - - - - tlf/2 tlf/3
The STD 18/RFC 904 also presents state transitions in table format.
However, it lists transitions in the form n/a, where n is the next
state and a represents the action. The method in RFC 1661 is
preferred as new-state logically follows action. Also, this RFC's
Appendix C models transitions as the Cartesian product of two state
machines. This is a more complex representation that may be
difficult to comprehend for those readers that are unfamiliar with
the format. The working group recommends that authors present tables
as defined in the previous paragraph.
A final method of representing state changes is by a time line. The
two sides of the time line represent the machines involved in the
exchange. The author lists the states the machines enter as time
progresses (downward) along the outside of time line. Within the
time line, show the actions that cause the state transitions. An
example:
client server
| |
| | LISTEN
SYN_SENT |----------------------- |
| \ syn j |
| ----------------->| SYN_RCVD
| |
| ------------------|
| syn k, ack j+1 / |
ESTABLISHED |<---------------------- |
| |
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
3.4 Character Sets
At one time the Internet had a geographic boundary and was English
only. Since the Internet now extends internationally, application
protocols must assume that the contents of any text string may be in
a language other than English. Therefore, new or updated protocols
which transmit text must use ISO 10646 as the default Coded Character
Set, and RFC 2044, "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO
10646" as the default Character Encoding Scheme. An exception is the
use of US-ASCII for a protocol's controlling commands and replies.
Protocols that have a backwards compatibility requirement should use
the default of the existing protocol. This is in keeping with the
recommendations of RFC 2130, "The Report of the IAB Character Set
Workshop held 29 February - 1 March 1996."
4 Document Checklist
The following is a checklist based on these guidelines that can be
applied to a document:
o Does it identify the security risks? Are countermeasures for each
potential attack provided? Are the effects of the security
measures on the operating environment detailed?
o Does it explain the purpose of the protocol or procedure? Are the
intended functions and services addressed? Does it describe how it
relates to existing protocols?
o Does it consider scaling and stability issues?
o Are procedures for assigning numbers provided as guidance for IANA.
o Does it discuss how to manage the protocol being specified. Is a
MIB defined?
o Is a target audience defined?
o Does it reference or explain the algorithms used in the protocol?
o Does it give packet diagrams in recommended form, if applicable?
o Does it describe differences from previous versions, if applicable?
o Does it separate explanatory portions of the document from
requirements?
o Does it give examples of protocol operation?
o Does it specify behavior in the face of incorrect operation by
other implementations?
o Does it delineate which packets should be accepted for processing
and which should be ignored?
o If multiple descriptions of a requirement are given, does it
identify one as binding?
o How many optional features does it specify? Does it separate them
into option classes?
o Have all combinations of options or option classes been examined
for incompatibility?
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
o Does it explain the rationale and use of options?
o Have all mandatory and optional requirements be identified and
documented by the accepted key words that define Internet
requirement levels?
o Does it use the recommended Internet meanings for any terms use to
specify the protocol?
o Are new or altered definitions for terms given in a glossary?
5 Security Considerations
This document does not define a protocol or procedure that could be
subject to an attack. It establishes guidelines for the information
that should be included in RFCs that are to be submitted to the
standards track. In the area of security, IETF standards authors are
called on to define clearly the the threats faced by the protocol and
the way the protocol does or does not provide security assurances to the
user.
6 References
RFC 791 "Internet Protocol (IP)," J. Postel, September 1981.
RFC 904 "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification," D. Mills,
April 1984
RFC 1058 "Routing Information Protocol," C. Hedrick, June 1988
RFC 1112 "Host extensions for IP multicasting," S. Deering,
August 1989
RFC 1122 "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers,"
R. Braden, October 1989
RFC 1123 "Requirements for Internet hosts -- Application and
Support," R. Braden, October 1989
RFC 1311 "Introduction to the STD Notes," J. Postel, March 1992
RFC 1350 "The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)," K. Sollins, July 1992
RFC 1583 "OSPF Version 2," J. Moy, March 1994
RFC 1661 "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)," W. Simpson, July 1994
RFC 1662 "PPP in HLDC-like Framing," W. Simpson, July 1994
RFC 1700 "Assigned Numbers," J. Reynolds, J. Postel, October 1994
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
RFC 1983 "Internet Users' Glossary," G. Malkin, August 1996
RFC 1939 "Post Office Protocol - Version 3," J. Meyers, M. Rose,
May 1996
RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3," S. Bradner,
October 1996
RFC 2044 "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646,"
F. Yergeau, October 1996
RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level,"
S. Bradner, March 1997
RFC 2130 "The Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29
February - 1 March 1996," C. Weider, C. Preston,
K. Simonsen, H. Alvestrand, R. Atkinson, M. Crispin,
P. Svanberg, April 1997
7 Acknowledgments
Peter Desnoyers and Art Mellor began the work on this document. The
area directors that oversaw the STDGUIDE WG's efforts were
Scott Bradner, Mike O'Dell, and John Curran. Others that contributed
to this document were:
Bernard Aboba
Harald T. Alvestrand
Fred Baker
Robert Elz
Dirk Fieldhouse
Dale Francisco
Gary Malkin
Neal McBurnett
Craig Partridge
Henning Schulzrinne
Kurt Starsinic
James Watt
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT Guide for Internet standards Writers May 1997
8 Editor's Address
Gregor D. Scott
Director, Defense Information Systems Agency
ATTN: JIEO-JEBBD
Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703-5613
USA
Phone: (908) 427-6856
Fax: (908) 532-0853
EMail: scottg@ftm.disa.mil
draft-ietf-stdguide-ops-04.txt [Page 19]
