Network Working Group B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft IBM
Expires: October 22, 2007 April 20, 2007
RFC 2026 in practice
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document discusses how RFC 2026, the current description of the
IETF standards process, operates in practice. Its main purpose is to
document, for information only, how actual practice interprets the
formal rules.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
Table of Contents
1. Disclaimer and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Detailed Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section] . . . . . 21
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
1. Disclaimer and Introduction
BCP 9 [RFC2026] has been the basis for the IETF standards process for
many years. This is a personal review of how some aspects of the
process work in practice, written with the perspective of an RFC
author, former WG chair, and former IESG and IAB member. The focus
is mainly on how the community, and the IESG in particular,
interprets the formal rules in actual practice. It should be
remembered that RFC 2026 has served the IETF well for more than ten
years, and the majority of it works very well as written.
Newcomers to the IETF should first read the Tao of the IETF
[RFC4677]. For a living guide to all IETF process documents, see
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-procdocs.html/>.
Extracts from RFC 2026 are presented verbatim in quotation marks,
preceded and followed by the following markers:
"---------Begin Extract---------
-----------End Extract---------"
Original pagination and administrative material have been ignored, as
has text where the author has no particular comments to make.
2. Detailed Commentary
"---------Begin Extract---------
Abstract
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the
stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
document between stages and the types of documents used during this
process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and
copyright issues associated with the standards process.
-----------End Extract---------"
The last sentence is obsolete (see comment on Section 10).
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
1.1 Internet Standards
...
The Internet Standards Process described in this document is
concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are
used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the
TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or
standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet
Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol
or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the
protocol itself.
-----------End Extract---------"
In practice, things are not as easily delimited as the above
paragraph suggests. Some IETF standards are quite interwoven with
standards from other organizations, and hence liaison relationships
have become complex and important. For example, from experience with
the temporary Sub-IP Area, and current experience with L2VPN, L3VPN,
PWE3 and MPLS, it seems that the paragraph above takes a rather
simple view. We have to deal with emulation of link-layer
transmission mechanisms over IP, multiprotocol switching via MPLS,
and the general layer confusion induced by VPNs.
"---------Begin Extract---------
1.2 The Internet Standards Process
...
o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification
must be implemented and tested for correct operation and
interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in
increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as
an Internet Standard.
-----------End Extract---------"
This is an important statement of principle. In fact, if some of the
more radical proposals for simplifying the standards track had been
adopted, it is unclear whether this principle could honestly be left
in place. (The antithesis is of course a priori standardization, in
which a specification is declared a standard without demonstrated
interoperability.) It is a fact that relatively few standards
advance beyond the Proposed Standard stage, and hence the mechanisms
for documenting interoperability are often not used.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to
the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the
standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to
be vital in achieving the goals listed above.
The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior
implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested
parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the
other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology
demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards
Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
or openness and fairness.
-----------End Extract---------"
One of the main criticisms of recent years has been that this balance
has not been achieved and the process has been too slow. However, it
is unclear whether this is is truly a matter of process failure
rather than procedural failure.
"---------Begin Extract---------
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs)
...
The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see
Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC
publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the
general direction of the IAB.
-----------End Extract---------"
Today, the RFC Editor's work for the IETF is also under the
administrative management of the IASA [RFC4071].
"---------Begin Extract---------
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] is applied today.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
*********************************************************
* *
* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *
* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *
* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *
* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *
* *
*********************************************************
-----------End Extract---------"
There are certainly people in the IETF who want to change this, to
allow normative reference to figures and mathematics that are not
readily expressed in ASCII. However, there are also strong arguments
that if something cannot be expressed in the linearized format of
pure ASCII, it cannot be expressed unambiguously anyway. Up to now,
this requirement has remained in force.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and
other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
specification (see section 3).
-----------End Extract---------"
This was written before a hyperlinked index was available on line.
At this writing, this RFC has not been updated for about three years.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'
subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
"STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
series. (see section 4.1.3)
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems that the fact that full Standards receive the STD
designation, and that PS and DS documents do not, is a major source
of confusion to users of the standards. Users do not, in fact, know
where to look for the latest standard, since a DS may obsolete an
STD, and a PS may obsolete either.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form
the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
in the RFC series. (see section 5)
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
-----------End Extract---------"
Factually, the RFC Editor does not have such discretion for IETF
documents - it's the IESG approval that defines the status of an IETF
RFC. IETF Experimental or Informational RFCs are distinct from
independent submissions to the RFC Editor, which are now processed
under [RFC3932].
"---------Begin Extract---------
2.2 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
...
-----------End Extract---------"
This is inaccurate. Expiry is inhibited when a draft enters IESG
consideration, not when it is approved.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
-----------End Extract---------"
However,
1. Drafts are also removed from the directory after publication as
an RFC.
2. All drafts are retained in the IETF archive for legal reasons.
3. This archive could have value to national patent offices and/or
WIPO as part of their prior art databases.
4. Expired drafts are unofficially visible in many places.
5. Authors may request expired drafts to be removed from such
visibility (in some countries, this is a legal right).
It's also worth noting that the published RFC will not be textually
identical to the final version of the draft. Not only will the
boilerplate be finalized; the RFC Editor will also make editorial
corrections, and any minor technical changes following IESG review
will be applied.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.1 Technical Specification (TS)
A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
procedure, convention, or format.
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems clear that this does not limit a TS to defining a wire
protocol - it doesn't exclude APIs, for example (an API is clearly a
convention). It includes data definitions such as MIBs (a MIB is
clearly a format). It doesn't exclude a standard that only defines
an IANA registry (a registry is also a format). Yet all of these
things have led to debate in the IETF - even in 2006 we have seen
debate about whether a document that only defines a registry can
become a Proposed Standard. It seems clear that a TS must be both
implementable and testable - but even this is subject to
interpretation. Also see later comments on interoperability testing.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
...
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, are defined by an Applicability Statement.
-----------End Extract---------"
The last sentence is unclear. Is it saying that a TS doesn't contain
operational guidelines? Quite often, the Operations Area comments on
a draft TS are, in effect, asking for operational guidelines. If a
TS refers to a timeout or some other behavioural parameter,
Operations people may insist on specifying a default value and
guidance about when to change the default. But the above sentence
could suggest that this belongs in a separate AS. In practice, few
authors separate such things from the basic specification.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS)
An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.
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 (see section
3.3).
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
The community really doesn't have the habit of writing this sort of
separate AS; it's rare, and very rare in WG charters. In fact, an AS
of this style, covering a set of related TS documents of various
maturities, would be very similar to the type of Internet Standards
description document that was discussed by the newtrk WG.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
"---------Begin Extract---------
The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
-----------End Extract---------"
The IETF community has shown reluctance to enter the business of
writing conformance specifications.
"---------Begin Extract---------
commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
-----------End Extract---------"
Today, we use the word "requirements" much more broadly, often as a
front-end document when a WG is starting out.
"---------Begin Extract---------
An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
the Standard level.
-----------End Extract---------"
There is nothing specific to ASes in this rule; it is applied
globally wherever normative references occur. See comment below on
4.2.4.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.3 Requirement Levels
-----------End Extract---------"
This section assumes a sophistication in ASes that is very rare, but
is in practice applied more generally. It provides the basis on
which the normative keywords [RFC2119] are built.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
...
(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.
Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
TSs.
-----------End Extract---------"
It would be much clearer to the reader if this was said at the
beginning of this section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
section. This RFC is updated periodically. 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.
-----------End Extract---------"
As noted, STD1 is rarely updated today. How this is really done in
the RFC archive is an operational matter. The concept and format of
STD1 long predated the availability of on-line hyperlinked
information.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
...
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended.
-----------End Extract---------"
It is well known that to a large extent this warning has been
ignored, and that the Internet "runs on Proposed Standards." Also,
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
as the MIB doctors have observed, some types of spec may benefit from
being recycled at this level rather than being "promoted." In
reality today:
1. Proposed Standard (PS) is the preliminary level.
2. Implementors should be aware that a PS may be revised or even
withdrawn.
3. It is nevertheless common to use PS implementations
operationally.
4. Many documents spend their entire active life as PS.
5. Certain types of specification are likely to be recycled at PS as
they evolve rather than being promoted. (Sometimes this is
simply a result of complexity, but other times it's due to
intrinsic difficulties in interoperability testing and normative
dependencies.)
For a number of years, the Routing Area was stricter about this,
under [RFC1264]. This practice has been rescinded by [RFC4794].
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.2 Draft Standard
...
A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology
is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.
The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
specification.
-----------End Extract---------"
At least four significant questions arise repeatedly in interpreting
this.
1. What is a "feature"? This can be interpreted in many ways. For
a TLV field is every separate type code a feature? Is every
normative keyword [RFC2119] a feature?
2. Is it acceptable if features A and B are shown to be
interoperable between implementations X and Y, and features C and
D are shown to be interoperable between implentations P and Q?
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
In that case we have shown interoperability of features A, B, C
and D but have not shown that any implementation successfully
interoperates with all of them.
At least for the strong security requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365],
the Security Area, with the support of the IESG, has insisted
that all specifications include at least one mandatory-to-
implement strong security mechanism to guarantee universal
interoperability.
3. Is it acceptable if both implementations X and Y show
interoperability with implementation Q, but the implementor of Q
is not party to the tests and does not make any statements about
features supported? In other words Q has merely served as an
active mirror in the tests.
4. How should we handle the issue of "single-ended" technical
specifications such as data formats, where there is no new
protocol whose interoperation we can verify? A practical
solution for MIBs has been documented [RFC2438] and some
generalisation of this seems to be needed.
"---------Begin Extract---------
In cases in which one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed.
The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet
Standard status along with documentation about testing of the
interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must
include information about the support of each of the individual
options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the
Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems that we need to specify the minimum acceptable contents of
an interoperability report in considerably more detail than this.
Examining the database of reports collected over the years at
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html>, the quality is highly
variable and some are very sparse and uninformative.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.3 Internet Standard
...
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
-----------End Extract---------"
There is normally an acronym associated with an STD designation. One
source of user confusion is that these acronyms are not associatd
with PS and DS documents. It would be less confusing if a new or
existing acronym was assigned as part of the initial standards action
(thus RFC 2821 would have been associated with SMTP). It's also a
matter for debate whether the STD number should be assigned at PS
stage for simpler tracking - thus RFC 2821 could also be known as
PS10, for example.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.1 Experimental
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
-----------End Extract---------"
The IESG has been concerned about the scope of "experiments" on the
Internet and the lack of clear guidelines as to which experiments we
should document in the IETF and to what extent we should be concerned
about operational consequences. In fact, the IESG asked the
community for discussion on this point. It's also worth looking at
<http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html>.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.2 Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
-----------End Extract---------"
In practice, some Informationals and Experimentals that are published
via IESG Approval are very close to being a TS and are evaluated
almost as carefully as a TS. Others are more general.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
-----------End Extract---------"
This seems to conflate "outside of the IETF process" and "outside of
the Internet community." Some specifications originate elsewhere
(for example, cryptographic algorithms). These are routinely
published as IESG-approved Informational RFCs, commonly sponsored by
an Area Director rather than being processed by a WG. Other
specifications, such as proprietary specifications or work that did
not find IETF sponsorship, are published as Informational RFCs after
independent submission to the RFC Editor. As part of the recent RFC
Editor RFP process, clarity is being sought about the independent
submissions track, which should probably not be discussed at all in
the basic definition of the standards process. See
[I-D.iab-rfc-independent] for a current description.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
-----------End Extract---------"
That's often not what happens. Many of them come via an AD through
the IESG because they are (for example) related to a recently closed
WG etc. These are processed and approved entirely within the IETF.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
-----------End Extract---------"
That is inaccurate, i.e. they ask the authors to do so, except
possibly shortly prior to April 1st each year.
"---------Begin Extract---------
In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
easily recognizable.
-----------End Extract---------"
Not done in practice.
"---------Begin Extract---------
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
contribution to the Internet Standards Process.
-----------End Extract---------"
The current practice for this is defined in [RFC3932]; also see
[I-D.iab-rfc-independent].
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.2.4 Historic
A specification 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.)
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
-----------End Extract---------"
The first paragraph has not been implemented consistently. In many
cases a standards track RFC that has been obsoleted by a more recent
version is not listed in the RFC Index as Historic.
The second paragraph is applied generally. Furthermore, a clear
distinction is now required between Normative and Informative
references. Also, the requirement for Normative references to be
published (i.e. not work in progress) is applied to all
specifications, not just the standards track.
Also note the procedures of [RFC3967] and [I-D.klensin-norm-ref] for
allowing normative reference to less mature documents.
"---------Begin Extract---------
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
to perform some operations or IETF process function.
Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
service requires that the operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
for consensus building.
-----------End Extract---------"
It is sometimes unclear whether a given document should be standards
track, BCP or informational (and in the end, it may not really
matter). For example, how should the IESG classify a document which
recommends against a particular operational practice that has been
found to be damaging? It might amend a technical specification (by
removing a feature); it might limit the applicability of a protocol
(and therefore be an applicability statement); it might be a BCP
defining a "worst current practice"; or it might fit none of the
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
above.
"---------Begin Extract---------
While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are
composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the
technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities
themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders
in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
community's view of that issue.
-----------End Extract---------"
Although it's not unknown for a BCP to have its origin in the IESG or
IAB, IETF consensus is still needed, as judged by the IESG.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.1.1 Initiation of Action
A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.
It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less
than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
recommendation for action may be initiated.
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
the IESG.
-----------End Extract---------"
In practice, individual submissions are recommended to and shepherded
by an AD, who brings them to the IESG just like a WG document. See
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html>.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
6.1.3 Publication
If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be
removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
-----------End Extract---------"
"At that point" refers to the moment of publication of the RFC.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track
...
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 typographical 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
cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
time-at-level clock.
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.
"---------Begin Extract---------
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
-----------End Extract---------"
No IESG has ever had the cycles to do this. It is left to community
initiative to propose promotion of documents.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals
-----------End Extract---------"
It's possible to read this as applying only to IESG actions described
in this section 6. The IESG and IAB have preferred to read it as
applying to any IESG decision whatever.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
...
If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
manner of its own choosing.
-----------End Extract---------"
It is unclear how much due diligence is expected of the IESG. Today
there is a tendency in the IESG to believe that even if an appeal is
of doubtful merit, they need to plunge in great detail into the
documents and mail archives concerned, and reaching a conclusion can
take an inordinate amount of time and stress. Should the IESG take a
more summary approach to appeals, or does the community want the IESG
to spend a substantial amount of time on each appeal? (Same comments
apply to section 6.5.2.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
-----------End Extract---------"
This section is superseded by [RFC3978] and [RFC3979].
3. Security Considerations
This document has no security implications for the Internet.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires no action by the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements
Useful comments on this document were made by Eric Gray, Luc Pardon,
Pekka Savola, Magnus Westerlund, Jeff Hutzelman, Mike Heard, Alfred
Hoenes and others.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
6. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section]
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-03: Clarifications and editorial
updates, 2007-04-20
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02: Changed title, changed tone from
critique to commentary, removed purely editorial comments, included
further substantive comments, 2006-08-10
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-01: reduced personal statement,
included feedback comments, 2006-04-11
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-00: original version, 2006-02-24
7. Informative References
[I-D.iab-rfc-independent]
Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the
RFC Editor", draft-iab-rfc-independent-00 (work in
progress), March 2007.
[I-D.klensin-norm-ref]
Hartman, S. and J. Klensin, "Handling Normative References
to Standards Track Documents", draft-klensin-norm-ref-04
(work in progress), March 2007.
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]
Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08
(work in progress), July 2004.
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
October 1991.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2438] O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner,
"Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards
Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438, October 1998.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
RFC 3365, August 2002.
[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, April 2005.
[RFC4677] Hoffman, P. and S. Harris, "The Tao of IETF - A Novice's
Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force", RFC 4677,
September 2006.
[RFC4794] Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794,
December 2006.
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
Author's Address
Brian Carpenter
IBM
8 Chemin de Blandonnet
1214 Vernier,
Switzerland
Email: brc@zurich.ibm.com
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC 2026 in practice April 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Carpenter Expires October 22, 2007 [Page 24]