Internet Info 1994 March

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Internet Info 1994 March / Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso / inet / internet-drafts / draft-iab-standards-processv2-00.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-03-03 | 61KB | 1,475 lines

Internet Draft Internet Architecture Board Lyman Chapin, Chair November 1992 Expires: May 1993 Draft revision to RFC-1310 -- The Internet Standards Process 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. Internet Drafts 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.'' Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the current status of any Internet Draft. Abstract This memo is a draft of the first update to RFC-1310, which documents the current standards procedures in the Internet community. This memo is being distributed for comment from the Internet community. Major changes in this update include the following: (a) Add Prototype Status (b) Rewrite the Intellectual Property Rights section, to incorporate legal advice. Section 5 of this document replaces Sections 5 and 6 of RFC-1310. (c) Describe new procedures, e.g., the IESG "last call". (d) Incorporate many suggestions made by IETF members. Significant content changes from RFC-1310 are noted with change bars. In addition, there are many stylistic changes and some reorganization. IAB [Page 1] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2 1.1. Internet Standards ....................................... 2 1.2. Organization ............................................. 4 1.3. Standards-Related Publications ........................... 5 1.3.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) ........................ 5 1.3.2. Internet Drafts ..................................... 6 1.4. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................ 6 2. NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 7 2.1. The Internet Standards Track ............................. 7 2.2. Types of Specifications .................................. 7 2.3. Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 9 2.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 10 2.5. Requirement Levels ....................................... 12 3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ............................... 13 3.1. Review and Approval ...................................... 13 3.2. Entering the Standards Track ............................. 15 3.3. Advancing in the Standards Track ......................... 15 3.4. Revising a Standard ...................................... 16 3.5. Retiring a Standard ...................................... 16 4. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 15 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 18 5.1. Trade Secret Rights ...................................... 19 5.2. Patent Rights ............................................ 19 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES ............................... 21 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ............................................. 22 APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS ....................................... 22 IAB [Page 2] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Internet Standards. This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet | Society for the standardization of Internet protocols and | procedures. The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, that are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards. The architecture and technical specifications of the Internet are the result of numerous research and development activities conducted over a period of two decades, performed by the network R&D community, by service and equipment vendors, and by government agencies around the world. In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. The principal set of Internet Standards is commonly known as the "TCP/IP protocol suite". As the Internet evolves, new protocols and services, in particular those for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI), have been and will be deployed in traditional TCP/IP environments, leading to an Internet that supports multiple protocol suites. This document concerns all protocols, procedures, and conventions intended for use in the Internet, not just the TCP/IP protocols. The procedures described in this document are intended to provide a clear, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet Standards for protocols and services. The procedures provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all interested parties. Before an Internet Standard is adopted, it is repeatedly discussed (and perhaps debated) in open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is available for review via world-wide on-line directories. These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and adopting generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate for Internet standardization is implemented and tested for correct operation and interoperability by multiple, independent parties, and IAB [Page 3] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as an Internet Standard. The procedures that are described here provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the Internet standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to be vital in achieving the following goals for Internet standardization: * high quality, * prior implementation and testing, * openness and fairness, and * timeliness. In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development and several iterations of review by the Internet community and revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the process is more complicated, due to (1) the number and type of possible sources for specifications; (2) the | difficulty of creating specifications of high technical quality; (3) the desire to preserve the interests of all of the affected parties; (4) the importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and (5) the difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the Internet community. Some specifications that are candidates for Internet standardization are the result of organized efforts directly within the Internet community; others are the result of work that was not originally organized as an Internet effort, but which was later adopted by the Internet community. From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. The procedures described in this document are the result of three years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. Comments and suggestions are invited for improvement in these IAB [Page 4] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 procedures. The remainder of this section describes the organizations and | publications involved in Internet standardization. Section 2 | presents the nomenclature for different kinds and levels of | Internet standard technical specifications and their | applicability. Section 3 describes the process and rules for | Internet standardization. Section 4 defines how relevant | externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and | controlled by other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled in | the Internet standardization process. Section 5 presents the | rules that are required to protect intellectual property rights. 1.2 Organization The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is the primary coordinating committee for Internet design, engineering, and management [1]. The The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has primary responsibility for the development and review of potential Internet Standards from all sources. The IETF forms Working Groups to pursue specific technical issues, frequently resulting in the development of one or more specifications that are proposed for adoption as Internet Standards. Final decisions on Internet standardization are made by the IAB, based upon recommendations from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the leadership body of the IETF. IETF Working Groups are organized into areas, and each area is coordinated by an Area Director. The Area Directors and the IETF Chairman are included in the IESG. Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is urged to attend IETF meetings and to participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups. Participation is by individual technical contributors rather than formal representatives of organizations. The process works because the IETF Working Groups display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity; IETF members recognize that the greatest benefit for all members of the Internet community results from cooperative development of technically superior protocols and services. A second body, the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), investigates topics considered to be too uncertain, too advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to be the subject of Internet standardization. When an IRTF activity generates a specification that is sufficiently stable to be considered for Internet standardization, the specification is processed through the using IAB [Page 5] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 the rules in this document. 1.3. Standards-Related Publications 1.3.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) Each distinct version of a specification is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series. This series is the official publication channel for the IAB and its activities, and the RFC Editor is a member of the IAB. RFCs form a series of publications of networking technical documents, begun in 1969 as part of the original DARPA wide- area networking (ARPANET) project (see Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of topics, from early discussion of new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in | reference [10]. Every RFC will be available in ASCII text, but | some RFCs will also be available in Postscript. For | standards-track specifications, there is a stricter requirement | on the publication format: the ASCII version is the reference | document, and therefore it must be complete and accurate. A | supplemental Postscript versin with more attractive formatting | is optional in this case. The status of specifications on the Internet standards track is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "IAB Official Protocol Standards" [2]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service specification. ******************************************************** * The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC is the * * authoritative statement of the current status of * * any particular Internet specification. * ******************************************************** The STD documents form a subseries of the RFC series. When a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, its RFC is labeled with a STDxxx number [9] in addition to its RFC number. Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet should or will become Internet Standards. Such non- standards track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet standardization; generally, they will be published IAB [Page 6] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 directly as RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor and the | IESG. These RFCs will be marked as "Prototype", "Experimental" | or "Informational" (see section 2.3). ******************************************************** * 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. * ******************************************************** 1.3.2. Internet Drafts During the development of a specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the IETF's "Internet Drafts" directory, which is replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating the process of review and revision. An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is simply removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an 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 the next section. Internet Drafts have no formal status, and are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet activity, and they are subject to change or removal at any time. Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be referenced by any paper, report, or Request for Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance with an | Internet-Draft. 1.4. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other parameters that must be uniquely assigned. Examples include version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers. The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the Internet. The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [8]. IAB [Page 7] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet Standard. For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP is a Standard. A particular value within a category may be assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be Experimental, or it may be private. Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values, so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA. Private protocols often become public. Programmers are often tempted to choose a "random" value or to guess the next unassigned value of a parameter; both are hazardous. The IANA is tasked to avoid frivolous assignments and to distinguish different assignments uniquely. The IANA accomplishes both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol or service to which a value is to be assigned. Judgment on the adequacy of the description resides with the IANA. In the case of a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding technical specifications provide the required documentation for IANA. For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page) writeup is still required for an assignment. 2. NOMENCLATURE 2.1. The Internet Standards Track Specifications that are destined 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 below in Section 3.2. 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 3.3 to cover these and other "off-track" specifications. IAB [Page 8] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 2.2. Types of Specifications Specifications subject to the Internet standardization process fall into two categories: Technical Specifications (TS) and Applicability Statements (AS). 2.2.1. Technical Specification (TS) A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications by reference to other documents (which may or may not be Internet Standards). A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, is defined by an Applicability Statement. 2.2.2. Applicability Statement (AS) An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 4. An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective. An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-based database servers. The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of Internet systems [3,4,5], such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. IAB [Page 9] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track than any TS to which the AS applies. For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not an AS at the Standard level. Like a TS, an AS does not come into effect until it reaches Standard level. Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice an Internet Standard RFC may include elements of both an AS and one or more TSs in a single document. 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 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 2.3. Standards Track Maturity Levels ASs and TSs 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. The general procedures for developing a specification and processing it through the maturity levels along the standards track were discussed in Section 2 above. 2.3.1. Proposed Standard The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed Standard". 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 to a Standard. 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. Furthermore, the IAB may require IAB [Page 10] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed 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. Typically, such a specification will be published initially with Experimental or Prototype status (see below), and moved to the standards track only after sufficient implementation or operational experience has been obtained. A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it. In some cases, the IESG may recommend that the requirements be explicitly reduced in order to allow a protocol to advance into the Proposed Standard state. This can happen if the specification is considered to be useful and necessary (and timely), even absent the missing features. For example, some protocols have been advanced by explicitly deciding to omit security features at the Proposed Standard level, since an overall security architecture was still under development. 2.3.2. Draft Standard A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations have been developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. This is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful. A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 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. 2.3.3. 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. IAB [Page 11] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 2.4. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels Not every TS or AS is on the standards track. A TS may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards track. A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. Specifications not on the standards track are labeled with one of four off-track maturity levels: "Prototype, "Experimental", | "Informational", and "Historic". There are no time limits | associated with these non-standard track labels, and the documents | bearing these labels are not standards in any sense. 2.4.1. Prototype | The "Prototype" designation on a TS indicates a specification | produced by a protocol engineering effort that is not | sufficiently mature to enter the standards track. For example, | a Prototype TS may specify behavior that is not completely | understood, or it may have known technical omissions or | architectural defects. It may undergo significant changes | before entering the standards track, and it may be discarded in | favor of another proposal. One use of the Prototype | designation is the dissemination of a specification as it | undergoes development and testing. | A Prototype specification will generally be the output of an | organized Internet engineering effort, for example a Working | Group of the IETF. An IETF Working Group should submit a | document that is intended for Prototype status to the IESG. | The IESG will forward it to the RFC Editor for publication, | after verifying that there has been adequate coordination with | the standards process. | 2.4.2. Experimental | The "Experimental" designation on a TS indicates a | specification that is part of a research effort. Such a | specification is published for general information of the | Internet technical community and as an archival record of the | work. An Experimental specification may be the output of an | organized Internet research effort or it may be an individual | contribution. | Documents intended for Experimental status should be submitted | directly to the RFC Editor for publication. The rules are | IAB [Page 12] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 intended to expedite the publication of any responsible | Experimental specification, subject only to editorial | considerations, and to a check that there has been adequate | coordination with the standards process. 2.4.3. Informational An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation. 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 4 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner. 2.4.4. Historic A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is historical.) 2.5. Requirement Levels An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each of the TSs to which it refers: (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 technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain of 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. (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 IAB [Page 13] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 environment. As noted in Section 2.4, there are TSs that are not in the standards track or that have been retired from the standards track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for such TSs: (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered appropriate for use only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic status. The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found in appropriate ASs. 3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 3.1. Review and Approval A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, or advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must be approved by the IAB following recommendation by the IESG. 3.1.1. Initiation of Action Typically, a standards action is initiated by a recommendation to the appropriate IETF Area Director by the individual or group that is responsible for the specification, usually an IETF Working Group. After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made available as an Internet Draft. It shall remain as an Internet Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review, at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG with a recommendation for action. IAB [Page 14] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 3.1.2. IESG Review The IESG shall determine if an independent technical review of the specification is required, and shall commission one if necessary. This may require creating a new Working Group, or there may be an agreement by an existing group to take responsibility for reviewing the specification. When a specification is sufficiently important in terms of its potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG shall form an independent technical review and analysis committee to prepare an evaluation of the specification. Such a committee is commissioned to provide an objective basis for agreement within the Internet community that the specification is ready for advancement. Furthermore, when the criteria for advancement along the standards track for an important class of specifications (e.g., routing protocols [6]) are not universally recognized, the IESG shall commission the development and publication of category- specific acceptance criteria. The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this document) and shall communicate its findings to the IETF to permit a final review by the general Internet community. This "last-call" notification shall be via | electronic mail to the IETF mailing list. In addition, for | important specifications there shall be a presentation or | statement by the appropriate working group or Area Director | during an IETF plenary meeting. Any significant issues that have not been resolved satisfactorily during the development of the specification may be raised at this time for final resolution by the IESG. In a timely fashion, but no less than two weeks after issuance | of the last-call notification to the IETF mailing list, the | IESG shall communicate to the IAB its final recommendation via | email, with a copy to the IETF mailing list. This notification | shall include a citation to the most current version of the | document, and a clear statement of any relationship or | anticipated impact of this action on other Internet standards- | track specifications or non-Internet standards. 3.1.3. IAB Review The IAB shall review the IESG recommendation in a timely manner. If the IAB finds a significant problem or needs clarification on a particular point, it shall resolve the IAB [Page 15] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 matter with the Working Group and its chairperson and/or the document author, with the assistance and concurrence of the IESG and the relevant IETF Area Director. The IAB shall notify the IETF mailing list of IAB approval or | other action that results. 3.1.4. Publication Following IAB approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC. The specification shall then 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 Newsletter. | This shall constitute the Journal of Record of Internet | standards actions. In addition, the IAB shall publish a | monthly summary of standards actions completed and pending in | the Internet Monthly Report, distributed to all members of the | IETF mailing list. 3.2. Entering the Standards Track A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may originate from: (a) an IAB-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group), (b) independent activity by individuals, or (c) an external organization. Here (a) represents the great majority of cases. In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered for standardization without prior IETF involvement. In most cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took place outside of an IETF Working Group context will be submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement. If necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created. For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability of the specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all technical and usage questions, additional independent review may be necessary. Such reviews may be done within a Working Group IAB [Page 16] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically for that purpose. It is the responsibility of the appropriate IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of an external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted. 3.3. Advancing in the Standards Track A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months and at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, to ensure adequate time for community review. | These intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of | the resulting RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC | publication, the date of IAB approval of the action. | A review of the viability of a standardization effort will be | conducted by the IESG and IAB when a standards-track specification | has remained at the same status level for twenty-four (24) months, | and every twelve (12) months thereafter until the status is | changed. The IESG shall recommend, and the IAB approve, | termination or continuation of the development, with the | appropriate change of status. Such a recommendation shall be | communicated to the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF 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. 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 all in the specification since the last | publication. Generally, desired changes will be "batched" for | incorporation at the next level in the standards track. However, | deferral of changes to the next standards action on the | specification will not always be possible or desirable; for | example, an important typographic error, or a technical error that | does not represent a change in overall function of the | specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such | IAB [Page 17] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC | with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-at- | level clock. 3.4. 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 move to the Historic status. However, in some cases both versions may remain as Internet Standards, to honor the requirements of an installed base. In this sitution, 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 2.2.2). 3.5. Retiring a Standard | As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new | Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that | one or more existing Internet Standards for the same function | should be retired. In this case, the IESG shall recommend and the | IAB approve a change of status of the superseded specification(s) | from Standard to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued | with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any | other standards action. 4. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS Many de facto and de jure standards groups other than the IAB/IETF create and publish standards documents for network protocols and services. When these external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to establish Internet Standards relating to these external specifications. There are two categories of external specifications: (1) Open Standards Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and CCITT, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications (see glossary in Appendix A). These specifications are generally de jure standards. Similarly, national and international groups publish "implementors' IAB [Page 18] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 agreements" that are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical application of their standards. (2) Vendor Specifications A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely used in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as a de facto "standard". Such a specification is not generally developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it. To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification, unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However, there are several ways in which an external specification that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be adopted for Internet use. (a) Incorporation of an Open Standard An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external standard by reference. The reference must be to a specific version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the organization that is responsible for the specification. For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [7]. (b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification Vendor-proprietary specifications may also be incorporated, by reference to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily available, the IAB may request that it be published as an Informational RFC. | For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within | the Internet standards process, the proprietor must follow the | requirements of section 5 below. | The IAB/IETF will generally not favor a particular vendor's proprietary specification over the technically equivalent and competing specifications of other vendors by making it "required" or "recommended". IAB [Page 19] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 (c) Assumption | An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification | and develop it into an Internet TS or AS, if the specification | is provided to the Working Group in compliance with the | requirements of section 5 below. Continued participation in the | IETF work by the original owner is likely to be valuable, and it | is encouraged. 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS | In all matters of intellectual property rights, Internet's intention | is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while | respecting the known, legitimate rights of others. | In this section: | o "applicable patents" or "applicable pending patents" means | purportedly valid patents or patent applications that | purportedly apply to technology required to practice an Internet | standard. | o "Trade secrets" means confidential, proprietary information. | o "ISOC" includes the Internet Society, its directors, officers, | employees, contractors, and agents, IAB, IETF, IESG, and | Internet working groups and committees. | o "Standards work" includes the creation, development, testing, | revision, adoption, or maintenance of an Internet standard. | o "Standards documents" include specifications, RFCs, and | proposed, draft, and adopted standards. | o "Internet community" means the entire set of people using the | Internet standards, directly or indirectly. | 5.1. Trade Secret Rights | ISOC will not accept, in connection with its standards work, any | technology or information subject to any commitment, | understanding, or agreement to keep it confidential or otherwise | restrict its use or dissemination. | IAB [Page 20] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 5.2. Patent Rights | (A) ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any | standard which can only be practiced using technology that is | subject to known applicable patents or patent applications, | except with prior written assurance that: | 1. ISOC may, without cost, freely use the technology in its | standards work, and | 2. upon adoption and during maintenance of a standard, any | party will be able to obtain the right to use the | technology under specified, reasonable, non- | discriminatory terms. | 3. the party giving the assurance has the right and power | to grant the licenses and knows of no other applicable | patents or patent applications or other intellectual | property rights that may prevent ISOC and users of | Internet from practicing the standard. | When the written assurance has been obtained, the standards | documents shall include the following notice: | "__________(name of patent owner) has provided written | assurance to the Internet Society that any party will be able | to obtain, under reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, the | right to use the technology covered by__________(list patents | and patent applications) to practice the standard. A copy of | the assurance may be obtained from ________. The Internet | Society takes no position on the validity or scope of the | patents and patent applications, nor on the appropriateness | of the terms of the assurance. The Internet Society makes no | representation there are no other intellectual property | rights which apply to practicing this standard, or that it | has made any effort to identify any such intellectual | property rights." | (B) ISOC encourages all interested parties to bring to its | attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of | any applicable patents or patent applications. For this | purpose, each standards document will include the following | invitation: | "The Internet Society invites any interested party to | bring to its attention any patents or patent applications | IAB [Page 21] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 which purport to cover technology that may be required to | practice this standard. Address the information to | __________." | When applicable, the following sentence will be included in | the notice: | "As of __________, no information about any applicable patents| or patent applications has been received." | (C) ISOC disclaims any responsibility to identify the existence | of or to evaluate applicable patents or patent applications | on behalf of or for the benefit of any member of the Internet | community. | (D) ISOC takes no position on the validity or scope of any | applicable patent or patent application. | (E) ISOC will take no position on the ownership of inventions | made during standards work, except for inventions of which an | employee or agent of the Internet Society is a joint | inventor. In the latter case, the Internet Society will make | its rights available to anyone in the Internet community on a | royalty-free basis. | 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES This document represents the combined output of the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group, the groups charged with managing the processes described in this document. Major contributions to the text were made by Bob Braden, Vint Cerf, Lyman Chapin, Dave Crocker, Barry Leiner, and Patrice Lyons. It incorporates a number of useful suggestions made by IETF members. [1] Cerf, V., "The Internet Activities Board", RFC 1160, IAB, May 1990. [2] Postel, J., "IAB Official Protocol Standards", RFC 1280, IAB, March 1992. [3] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers", RFC 1122, IETF, October 1989. [4] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support", RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989. IAB [Page 22] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 [5] Almquist, P., Editor, "Requirements for IP Routers", in preparation. [6] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, BBN, October 1991. [7] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. [8] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1060, ISI, March 1990. [9] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, ISI, March 1992. [10] Postel, J., "How to Write an RFC", RFC 1???, ISI, ????, 199?. APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ANSI: American National Standards Institute CCITT: Consultative Committee for International Telephone and Telegraphy. A part of the UN Treaty Organization: the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). DARPA: (U.S.) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ISO: International Organization for Standardization APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS | To contact the RFC Editor, send an email message to "rfc- | editor@isi.edu". | To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword | or parameter assignment send an email message to "iana@isi.edu". | To contact the IESG, send an email message to "iesg@isi.edu". | To contact the IAB, send an email message to "iab-contact@isi.edu" IAB [Page 23] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 Security Considerations Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo. Authors' Address A. Lyman Chapin BBN Communications Corporation 150 Cambridge Park Drive Cambridge, MA 02140 Phone: 617-873-3133 Fax: 617-873-4086 Email: Lyman@BBN.COM Bob Braden University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (310) 822-1511 EMail: Braden@ISI.EDU IAB [Page 24] Internet Draft Internet Standards Process November 1992 IAB [Page 25]