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]