Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft IIJ
Updates: 2026 (if approved) T. Narten
Expires: January 2005 IBM Corporation
July 19, 2004
Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to
Documents at a Lower Level
draft-ymbk-downref-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3667.
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 December 11, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not
have a normative reference to another standards track document at a
lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other
than specifications from other standards bodies). 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-
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 1]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
IETF standards, or IETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This
document clarifies and updates the procedure used in these
circumstances.
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 2]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
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.
It should also be noted that Best Current Practice documents
[RFC1818] have generally been considered similar to Standards Track
documents in terms of what they can reference. For example, a
normative reference to an Experimental RFC has been considered an
improper reference per [RFC2026].
1.1 Normative References
Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general
categories: "normative" and "informative". Broadly speaking, a
normative reference specifies a document that must be read to fully
understand or implement the subject matter in the new RFC, or whose
contents are effectively part of the new RFC in the sense that its
omission would leave the new RFC incompletely specified. An
informative reference is not normative; rather, it provides only
additional, background information.
An exact and precise definition of what is (and is not) a normative
reference has proven challenging in practice, as the details and
implications can be subtle. Morever, whether a reference needs to be
normative can depend on the context in which a particular RFC is
being published in the first place. For example, in an IETF
Standard's context, it is important that all dependent pieces be
clearly specified and available in an archival form, so that there is
no disagreement over what constitutes a standard. This is not always
the case for other documents.
The rest of this section provides guidance on what might (and might
not) be considered normative in the context of the IETF standards
process.
In the IETF, it is a basic assumption that implementors must have a
clear understanding of what they need to implement in order to be
fully compliant with a standard and to be able to interoperate with
other implementations of that standard. For documents that are
referenced, any document that includes key information an implementer
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 3]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
needs would be normative. For example, if one needs to understand a
packet format defined in another document in order to fully implement
a specification, the reference to that format would be normative.
Likewise, if a reference to a required algorithm is made, the
reference would be normative.
Some specific examples:
- if a protocol relies on IPsec to provide security, one cannot
fully implement the protocol without the specification for IPsec
also being available; hence, the reference would be normative.
The referenced specification would likely include details about
specific key management requirements, which transforms are
required and which are optional, etc.
- in the case of MIB documents, an IMPORTS clause by definition is
a normative reference.
- when a reference to an example is made, such a reference need
not be normative. For example, text such as "an algorithm such
as the one specified in [RFCxxx] would be acceptable" indicates
an informative reference, since that cited algorithm is just one
of several possible algorithms that could be used.
2. The Need for Downward References
There are a number of circumstances where an IETF document may need
to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
level, but such a reference is in conflict with Section 4.2.4 of
[RFC2026]. For example:
o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
algorithm 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.
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 4]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
o A BCP document may want to describe best current practices for
experimental or informational specifications.
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 down reference to a particular document has been
accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last
Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last
Call of down references to it. This should only occur when the same
document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes
that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's
understanding of the relevant technical area. For example, the use
of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known among
cryptographers.
This procedure should not be used when the appropriate step to take
is to move the document to which the reference is being made into the
appropriate category. I.e., this is not intended as an easy way out
of normal process. Rather, it is intended for dealing with specific
cases where putting particular documents into the required category
is problematical and unlikely to ever happen.
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. Acknowledgments
This document is the result of discussion within the IESG, with
particular contribution by Harald Alvestrand, Steve Bellovin, Scott
Bradner, Ned Freed, Allison Mankin, Jeff Schiller, and Bert Wijnen.
Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 5]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
Informative References
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 6]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
[RFC1818] Best Current Practices, J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter. RFC
1818, August 1995.
[2223bis] "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors",
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt.
[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.
[RFC2362] Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification. D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy,
D. Thaler, S. Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu,
P. Sharma, L. Wei. June 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
IIJ
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
US
Phone: +1 206 780 0431
EMail: randy@psg.com
URI: http://psg.com/~randy/
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 January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 7]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
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 (2004). 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 January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 8]
Internet-Draft Document Down-Ref Clarification July 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bush & Narten Expires January, 2005 FORMFEED[Page 9]