[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lear-newtrk-decruft-experiment) 00 01 02 03 RFC 4450

Network Working Group                                            E. Lear
Internet-Draft                                        Cisco Systems GmbH
Expires: May 21, 2006                                      H. Alvestrand
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       November 17, 2005


 Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify obsolete standards
                                document
              draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

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 May 21, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This memo documents an experiment to review and classify Proposed
   Standards as not reflecting documented practice within the world
   today.  The results identify a set of documents marked as Proposed
   Standards that should be considered for retirement in some way or
   another.




Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


1.  Introduction and history

   RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified timelines for review of
   immature (draft or proposed) standards.  The purpose of such review
   was to determine whether such documents should be advanced, retired,
   or developed further.[1]

   This procedure has never been followed in the history of the IETF.
   Since this procedure has not been followed, members of the community
   have suggested that the retiring of a document to Historic is a
   significant event, which should be justified carefully - leading to
   the production of documents such as RFC 2556 (OSI connectionless
   transport services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic
   Status) and RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1433 to Historic Status).

   Such documents require significant time and effort on the part of
   authors, area directors, and the RFC Editor.


2.  Bulk Decommissioning Procedure

   From the Fall of 2004 through the Spring of 2005 the authors
   conducted an experiment to determine how many Proposed Standards
   could be considered obsolete.  The experiment was operated as
   follows:
   o  Identify a group of documents that are standards.
   o  Assume by default that each document will be retired.
   o  Create a mailing list for discussion with a policy of open access.
   o  Allow any document to be removed from the list of those to be
      retired for virtually any reason, so long as a reason is provided.
   o  Present the list to the working group, IETF, and IESG for review.
   o  Revise list based on comments.
   o  Write up results.

   The initial intent of the authors was to present a list of documents
   to be reclassified as Historic.  The NEWTRK working group supported
   this view.  The IESG, and the IETF as a community, makes the final
   decision.  We will discuss this further below.


3.  Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations

   We started with our initial document set being all RFCs with numbers
   less than 2000 and a status of Proposed Standard.  The input we used,
   starting Noevember 25, 2004, can be found in the Appendix.  There
   were some 125 documents in all.

   A mailing list, old-standards@alvestrand.no, was created to discuss



Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


   and remove candidates from this list.  A call for participation was
   issued to the IETF-Announce list on or around the 15 Nov 2004.  There
   were 29 members of the mailing list.  Approximately 244 messages were
   sent to the list.  People were encouraged to consider the question of
   whether or not an implementer would either write a new implementation
   or maintain an existing one.

   After some months the list of documents to be considered was reduced
   considerably.  This list was then forwarded to the IETF discussion
   list on 16 Dec 04 and to the NEWTRK working group list for wider
   review.

   During review RFCs 1518 and 1519 were removed, based on the fact that
   work is ongoing to revise them.  Similarly, RFCs 1381, 1382, 1471,
   1472, and 1473 were removed based on the belief that they were
   actively in use.

   Here are the results:

      RFC1234 (Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks)
      RFC1239 (Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs)
      RFC1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
      provide an Internet Directory using X.500)
      RFC1285 (FDDI Management Information Base)
      RFC1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet)
      RFC1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading)
      RFC1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF)
      RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
      RFC1397 (Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of
      The Border Gateway Protocol)
      RFC1414 (Identification MIB)
      RFC1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification)
      RFC1418 (SNMP over OSI)
      RFC1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk)
      RFC1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:
      Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures)
      RFC1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      II: Certificate-Based Key Management)
      RFC1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers)
      RFC1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      IV: Key Certification and Related Services)
      RFC1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over
      X.25)
      RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
      RFC1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network
      Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)




Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


      RFC1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing)
      RFC1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
      Version 1)
      RFC1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message
      Bodies)
      RFC1496 (Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84)
      when MIME content-types are present in the messages
      RFC1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets)
      RFC1512 (FDDI Management Information Base)
      RFC1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring
      MIB)
      RFC1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing
      Bridges)
      RFC1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol
      (IPXCP))
      RFC1553 (Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX))
      RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
      RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
      RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
      RFC1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations)
      RFC1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2)
      RFC1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux))
      RFC1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2)
      RFC1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II)
      RFC1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control
      (SDLC) using SMIv2)
      RFC1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2)
      RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)
      RFC1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP))
      RFC1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP))
      RFC1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5)
      RFC1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ service)
      RFC1848 (MIME Object Security Services)
      RFC1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service)
      RFC1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh)

   One additional document, RFC 1829, the ESP DES-CBC transform, was
   suggested for Historic stauts, but in this case, the group consensus
   is that the community would benefit from a separate document
   describing the security implications of using this algorithm.


4.  Discussion

   As one peruses this list one sees several classes of documents:
   o  Multiprotocol functions for protocols that are obsolete, such as
      Appletalk or X.400.




Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


   o  Protocols that were defined but not used, such as PEM or Whois++

   In either case above a judgment is necessary as to whether or not a
   protocol is both in use and likely to be supported.  The parameters
   of our experiment were sufficiently conservative to avoid cases where
   protocols were likely to continue to be supported.  That is, anyone
   could remove a document from the list for any reason.  In fact, in
   some cases we may have been too conservative.  Thus, it is also worth
   considering the categories of documents that were removed from the
   list:
   o  specifications known to be in full use that should be considered
      for advancement
   o  specifications that are currently under review within the IETF
      process
   o  Specifications that were previously considered for deprecation and
      rejected.

   The last category is exclusive to telnet options, which were reviewed
   in the late 1990s.  Arguably such options should be reconsidered for
   deprecation.  Realistically nobody is going to develop a new version
   of telnet that supports the TACACS option, for instance.
   Nevertheless, as a first cut we were still left with 61 documents
   that could be reclassified.

   In at least one case discussion of deprecation has spurred work on
   documents.  For instance, there is a CIDR update in progress.


5.  Next Steps

   As we mention in the introduction, the current process requires
   reconsideration of immature standards, and this review currently does
   not occur.  This experiment has been an attempt at a procedure that
   could ease that review.  The final step was working group
   consideration of what to do next.  There were four options:
   1.  Accept the results of this experiment, issue a last call, and
       deprecate standards that remain on the list past last call.  This
       is an aggressive approach that would preserve the intent of RFC
       2026.
   2.  Do not accept the results of this experiment and update RFC 2026
       to indicate a new practice.
   3.  Revise the procedure based on the results of this experiment,
       based on feedback from the IESG.  This option might take into
       account the different types of old standards as described above.
   4.  Do nothing.  This would leave the IETF and the IESG practice
       inconsistent with documented practice.

   The working group chose the first option.  The RFC Editor is



Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


   requested to mark the above listed standards as Historic.

   [[NOTE IN DRAFT: This document is written after WG consensus was
   established, but before IESG approval.  If the IESG approves this
   document, the RFC Editor is requested to remove this note before
   publication.  If the IESG does not approve, this is moot.]]

   It should be pointed out that we only looked at proposed standards
   and only those RFCs with numbers less than 2000.  Should either the
   first or third of the above options be accepted, draft standards and
   those older than several years should be considered.

   Finally, should NEWTRK deliver a new document classification system,
   these documents may provide a basis for one or more new categories of
   that.


6.  IANA Considerations

   [RFC Editor - please do not remove this section.]  The IANA databases
   contain references to many of these documents.  The documents are
   still the normative definitions for these values, and the IANA
   databases do not contain information about the status of the RFCs
   referred to.

   Therefore, the IANA should not need to do anything based on this
   document.


7.  Security Considerations

   Documents that have security problems may require special attention
   and individual documents to indicate what concerns exist, and when or
   in what ways an implementation can be deployed to alleviate concerns.


8.  Acknowledgments

   This experiment would have been completely useless without
   participation of the members of the old-standards mailing list.  Most
   notably, Pekka Savalo, Bob Braden, and John Klensin were very active
   contributors to the discussions.

9.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
        BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.




Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


Appendix A.  Input RFCs
      RFC0698 (Telnet extended ASCII option)
      RFC0726 (Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet option)
      RFC0727 (Telnet logout option)
      RFC0735 (Revised Telnet byte macro option)
      RFC0736 (Telnet SUPDUP option)
      RFC0749 (Telnet SUPDUP-Output option)
      RFC0779 (Telnet send-location option)
      RFC0885 (Telnet end of record option)
      RFC0927 (TACACS user identification Telnet option)
      RFC0933 (Output marking Telnet option)
      RFC0946 (Telnet terminal location number option)
      RFC0977 (Network News Transfer Protocol)
      RFC1041 (Telnet 3270 regime option)
      RFC1043 (Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS implementation)
      RFC1053 (Telnet X.3 PAD option)
      RFC1073 (Telnet window size option)
      RFC1079 (Telnet terminal speed option)
      RFC1091 (Telnet terminal-type option)
      RFC1096 (Telnet X display location option)
      RFC1144 (Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links)
      RFC1195 (Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual)
      RFC1234 (Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks)
      RFC1239 (Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs)
      RFC1256 (ICMP Router Discovery Messages)
      RFC1269 (Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
      Protocol: Version 3)
      RFC1274 (The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema)
      RFC1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
      provide an Internet Directory using X.500)
      RFC1277 (Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over Non-
      OSI Lower Layers)
      RFC1285 (FDDI Management Information Base)
      RFC1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet)
      RFC1323 (TCP Extensions for High Performance)
      RFC1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading)
      RFC1332 (The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP))
      RFC1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF)
      RFC1372 (Telnet Remote Flow Control Option)
      RFC1377 (The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP))
      RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
      RFC1381 (SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB)
      RFC1382 (SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer)
      RFC1397 (Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of
      The Border Gateway Protocol)
      RFC1413 (Identification Protocol)





Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


      RFC1414 (Identification MIB)
      RFC1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification)
      RFC1418 (SNMP over OSI)
      RFC1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk)
      RFC1420 (SNMP over IPX)
      RFC1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:
      Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures)
      RFC1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      II: Certificate-Based Key Management)
      RFC1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers)
      RFC1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
      IV: Key Certification and Related Services)
      RFC1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over
      X.25)
      RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
      RFC1471 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control
      Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
      RFC1472 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security
      Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
      RFC1473 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network
      Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
      RFC1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network
      Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol)
      RFC1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing)
      RFC1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
      Version 1)
      RFC1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message
      Bodies)
      RFC1496 (Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84)
      RFC1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets)
      RFC1510 (The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5))
      RFC1512 (FDDI Management Information Base)
      RFC1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring
      MIB)
      RFC1517 (Applicability Statement for the Implementation of
      Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR))
      RFC1518 (An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR)
      RFC1519 (Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
      Assignment and Aggregation Strategy)
      RFC1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing
      Bridges)
      RFC1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol)
      RFC1553 (Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX))
      RFC1570 (PPP LCP Extensions)
      RFC1572 (Telnet Environment Option)





Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


      RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
      RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
      RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
      RFC1618 (PPP over ISDN)
      RFC1628 (UPS Management Information Base)
      RFC1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations)
      RFC1663 (PPP Reliable Transmission)
      RFC1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2)
      RFC1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux))
      RFC1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2)
      RFC1697 (Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management)
      RFC1731 (IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms)
      RFC1734 (POP3 AUTHentication command)
      RFC1738 (Uniform Resource Locators (URL))
      RFC1740 (MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME)
      RFC1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II)
      RFC1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control)
      RFC1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2)
      RFC1752 (The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol)
      RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)
      RFC1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP))
      RFC1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP))
      RFC1767 (MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects)
      RFC1793 (Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits)
      RFC1808 (Relative Uniform Resource Locators)
      RFC1812 (Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers)
      RFC1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5)
      RFC1829 (The ESP DES-CBC Transform)
      RFC1831 (RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version
      2)
      RFC1833 (Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2)
      RFC1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ service)
      RFC1847 (Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
      Multipart/Encrypted)
      RFC1848 (MIME Object Security Services)
      RFC1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service)
      RFC1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh)
      RFC1928 (SOCKS Protocol Version 5)
      RFC1929 (Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5)
      RFC1961 (GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5)
      RFC1962 (The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP))
      RFC1964 (The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism)
      RFC1968 (The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP))
      RFC1973 (PPP in Frame Relay)
      RFC1982 (Serial Number Arithmetic)
      RFC1985 (SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting)





Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


      RFC1995 (Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS)
      RFC1996 (A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS
      NOTIFY))
      RFC1997 (BGP Communities Attribute)















































Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Eliot Lear
   Cisco Systems GmbH
   Glatt-com
   Glattzentrum, ZH  CH-8301
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 1 878 7525
   Email: lear@cisco.com


   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
   Cisco Systems
   Weidemanns vei 27
   7043 Trondheim
   Norway

   Email: harald@alvestrand.no
































Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Cruft Experiment               November 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Lear & Alvestrand         Expires May 21, 2006                 [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/