Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft IIJ
Updates: 2026 (if approved) T. Narten
Expires: April 18, 2004 IBM Corporation
October 19, 2003
Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to
Documents at a Lower Level
draft-ymbk-downref-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 April 18, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not
have a normative reference to a document at a lower standards level.
For example a standards track document may not have a normative
reference to an informational RFC. There are needs for exceptions to
this rule, often caused by the IETF using informational RFCs to
describe non-IETF standards, or IETF-specific modes of use of such
standards. This document clarifies the procedure used in these
circumstances.
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Docment Down-Ref Clarification October 2003
1. Normative References Expected to be to Equal or Higher Level
The Internet Standards Process [RFC2026] Section 4.2.4 specifies:
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.
One intent is to avoid creating a perception that a standard is more
mature than it actually is.
2. The Need for Downward References
There are a number of circumstances where a reference to a document
at a lower maturity level may be needed.
o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol
developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or profiled
by an IETF informational RFC, for example MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC
[RFC2104]. Note that this does not override the IETF's duty to see
that the specification is indeed sufficiently clear to enable
creation of interoperable implementations.
o A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
informational RFCs.
o A migration or co-existence document may need to define a
standards track mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence
with, an historic protocol, a proprietary protocol, or possibly a
non-standards track protocol.
o There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons which force the
target of the normative reference to be an informational or
historical RFC, or for it to be at a lower standards level than
the referring document.
3. The Procedure to be Used
For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative reference to
documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call procedure will
be issued, with the need for the downward reference explicitly
documented in the Last Call itself. Any community comments on the
appropriateness of downward references will be considered by the IESG
as part of its deliberations. Once a specific precedent has been set
(i.e., the same exception has been made for a particular reference a
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Docment Down-Ref Clarification October 2003
few times), the need for an explicit mention of the issue during Last
Call may be waived.
This procedure should not be used when the document to which the
reference is being made could be advanced to the appropriate
category. I.e., this is not intended as an easy way out of normal
process.
4. Security Considerations
This document is not known to create any new vulnerabilities for the
internet. On the other hand, inappropriate or excessive use of the
process might be considered a down-grade attack on the quality of
IETF standards, or worse, on the rigorous review of security aspects
of standards.
5. Acknowlegnemts
This document is the result of discussion within the IESG, with
particular contribution by Harald Alvestrand, Steve Bellovin, Scott
Bradner, Ned Freed, Jeff Schiller, and Bert Wijnen.
Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Informative References
[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
IIJ
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbrisge Island, WA 98110
US
Phone: +1 206 780 0431
EMail: randy@psg.com
URI: http://psg.com/~randy/
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Docment Down-Ref Clarification October 2003
Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
US
Phone: +1 919 254 7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Docment Down-Ref Clarification October 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Docment Down-Ref Clarification October 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bush & Narten Expires April 18, 2004 [Page 6]
