[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7127

Network Working Group                                         O. Kolkman
Internet-Draft                                                NLnet Labs
Updates: 2026 (if approved)                                   S. Bradner
Intended status: Best Current Practice                Harvard University
Expires: May 06, 2014                                          S. Turner
                                                              IECA, Inc.
                                                       November 04, 2013

                 Characterization of Proposed Standards
             draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-06

Abstract

   RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the IESG on IETF Proposed
   Standard RFCs and characterizes the maturity level of those
   documents.  This document updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and
   more accurate characterization of Proposed Standards.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 06, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013

   2.  IETF Review of Proposed Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  Characterization of Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications   3
     3.2.  Characteristics of Internet Standards  . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   Appendix B. Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions . . .  4
     Appendix B.1.  Version 00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     Appendix B.2.  Version 00->01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     Appendix B.3.  Version 01->02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     Appendix B.4.  Version 02->03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     Appendix B.5.  Version 03->04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     Appendix B.6.  Version 04->05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     Appendix B.7.  Version 05->06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     Appendix B.8.  Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

1.  Introduction

   [Editor Note: ietf@ietf.org is the mailing-list for discussing this
   draft.]

   In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026] the IETF
   has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus
   RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed
   Standards.

   This document only updates the characterization of Proposed Standards
   from RFC2026 Section 4.1.1 and does not speak to or alter the
   procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from RFC
   2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410].  For complete understanding of the
   requirements for standardization those documents should be read in
   conjunction with this document.

2.  IETF Review of Proposed Standards

   The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
   Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
   specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
   level.

   Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications
   would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
   Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard then, finally,
   to Internet Standard (see RFC 2026 section 6).  For a number of
   reasons this progression is not common.  Many Proposed Standards are
   actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable
   protocols.  This proves the point that the community often deems it
   unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard.  Actual
   practice has been that full progression through the sequence of
   standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF



Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013

   protocols remain at Proposed Standard.  Over time, the IETF has
   developed a more extensive review process.

   IETF Proposed Standards documents have been subject to open
   development and review by the Internet technical community, generally
   including a number of formal cross-discipline reviews including,
   specifically, a security review.  This is further strengthened in
   many cases by implementations and even the presence of interoperable
   code.  Hence IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
   are ready for the usual market-based product development and
   deployment efforts into the Internet.

3.  Characterization of Specifications

   The text in the following section replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1.
   Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet
   Standards from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient
   reference.  The text only provides the characterization, process
   issues for Draft and Internet standards are described in RFC2026 and
   its updates, specifically RFC6410.

3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications

   The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
   Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
   specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
   level.

   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices and has received significant community review, and
   appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

   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.

   The IESG may require 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.

   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
   at scale is gathered.

3.2.  Characteristics of Internet Standards


Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013


   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.

4.  Further Considerations

   Occasionally the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
   document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges.  In
   such cases any known issues with the document will be clearly and
   prominently communicated in the document, for example in the
   abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no actions for IANA.

7.  References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D. and E. Burger, "Reducing the
              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
              October 2011.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone
   session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks to, in
   alphabetical order: Jari Arkko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Spencer
   Dawkins, Randy Bush, Benoit Claise, Dave Cridland, Adrian Farrel,
   Stephen Farrel, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Pete Resnick for
   motivation, input, and review.

   John Klensin and Dave Crocker have provided significant
   contributions.

Appendix B.  Internet Draft Notes and RFC Editor Instructions

   This section is to assist reviewers of this document.

   [Editor Note: Please remove this section and its subsections at
   publication]

Appendix B.1.  Version 00

Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013


   Introduction and motivation

   Verbatim copy from section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 of [RFC2026] of the
   Proposed and ant Internet Draft characterization into Section 3.1 and
   Section 3.2

   Modification of paragraphs of the Proposed Standards
   characterization, namely:

   OLD:

   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.

   NEW:

   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices, is well-understood, has received significant
   community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to
   be considered valuable.  However, as with all technical standards,
   further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the
   specification in the future.

   OLD:

   A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  However, the IESG may
   waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance
   to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and
   necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.

   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.

   NEW:

   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies



Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013

   at scale is gathered.

Appendix B.2.  Version 00->01

   Added "Updates 2026" and added Sean's initial"

   Copied the whole characterization paragraph for Internet Standards
   from 2026, instead of only the line that is the actual
   characterization itself.

   Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
   mailinglist.

Appendix B.3.  Version 01->02

   Sharpened the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction to be clear that the
   scope of the update is limited to section 4.1.1. and that this
   document should not be read stand-alone.

   Refined the "Further Considerations" Sections to express that as part
   of the process less mature specs are sometimes approved as Proposed
   Standards but that in those cases the documents should clearly
   indicate that.

   Minor editorial nits, and corrections.

Appendix B.4.  Version 02->03

   Changed a number of occurances where IESG review was used to the
   intended IETF review.

Appendix B.5.  Version 03->04

   s/In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done in most
   other SDOs/The IETF review is possibly more extensive than that done
   in most other SDOs/

   Minor spelling and style errors.

Appendix B.6.  Version 04->05

   Comments from the IESG are in: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
   kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified/ballot/

   Crocker's comment are in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/
   current/msg83488.html

   Refinement of the abstract text based on input by Dave Crocker and
   Pete Resnick

   In Section 2 Crocker suggested:

   OLD:


Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013


   Over time, for a number of reasons, this progression became less
   common.  In response, the IETF strengthened its review of Proposed
   Standards, basically operating as if the Proposed Standard was the
   last chance for the IETF to ensure the quality of the technology and
   the clarity of the Standard Track document.  The result was that IETF
   Proposed Standards approved over the last decade or more have had
   extensive reviews.

   NEW:

   For a number of reasons this progression is not common.  Many
   Proposed Standards are actually deployed on the Internet and used
   extensively, as stable protocols.  This proves the point that the
   community often deems it unnecessary to upgrade a specification to
   Internet Standard.  Actual practice has been that full progression
   through the sequence of standards levels is typically quite rare, and
   most popular IETF protocols remain at Proposed Standard.  Over time,
   the IETF has developed a more extensive review process.

   In the same section the comparisson with other SDOs triggered quite
   some comments from the IESG. The following replacement was suggested
   by Crocker, the reference to security review was based on the ballot
   write-up by S. Farrel, the text also addresses Claise's point made in
   his ballot write-up.

   OLD:

   Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards
   should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from
   other standards development organizations.  The IETF review is
   possibly more extensive than that done in most other SDOs owing to
   the cross-area technical review performed by the IETF, exemplified by
   technical review by the full IESG at the last stage of specification
   development.  That position is further strengthened by the common
   presence of interoperable running code and implementation before
   publication as a Proposed Standard.

   NEW:

   IETF Proposed Standards documents have been subject to open
   development and review by the Internet technical community, generally
   including a number of formal cross-discipline reviews including,
   specifically, a security review.  This is further strengthened in
   many cases by implementations and even the presence of interoperable
   code.  Hence IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
   are ready for the usual market-based product development and
   deployment efforts into the Internet.

   In section Section 3.1:

   OLD:

   design choices, is well-understood, has received significant

Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013


   NEW:

   design choices and has received significant

   RATIONALE: see Crocker's review.

   In Section 4:

   OLD:

   the IETF may, on occasion, publish a specification that still
   contains areas

   NEW:

   the IETF may publish a Proposed Standard that still contains

   FURTHER:

   Minor spelling and style errors

Appendix B.7.  Version 05->06

   OLD (in section Section 3:

   The text in the following section replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1.
   Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet
   Standards from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient
   reference.

   NEW:

   The text in the following section replaces RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1.
   Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet
   Standards from RFC 2026 Section 4.1.3 and is provided for convenient
   reference.  The text only provides the characterization, process
   issues for Draft and Internet standards are described in RFC2028 and
   its updates, specifically RFC6410.

   OLD  (in section Section 4:

   While less mature specifications will usually be published as
   Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may publish a Proposed
   Standard that still contains areas for improvement or certain
   uncertainties about whether the best engineering choices are made.
   In those cases that fact will be clearly and prominently communicated
   in the document e.g.  in the abstract, the introduction, or a
   separate section or statement.

   NEW:




Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             Proposed Standard               November 2013


   Occasionally the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
   document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges.  In
   such cases any known issues with the document will be clearly and
   prominently communicated in the document, for example in the
   abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.

Appendix B.8.  Editors versioning info

   $Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 21 2013-11-04
   19:37:28Z olaf $

Authors' Addresses

   Olaf Kolkman
   Stichting NLnet Labs
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam, 1098 XH
   The Netherlands

   Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
   URI:   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/


   Scott O. Bradner
   Harvard University Information Technology
   Innovation and Architecture
   1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
   Cambridge, MA 02138
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 617 495 3864
   Email: sob@harvard.edu
   URI:   http://www.harvard.edu/huit


   Sean Turner
   IECA, Inc.

   Email: turners@ieca.com














Kolkman, Bradner & Turner Expires May 06, 2014                  [Page 9]


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