[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-iab-standar...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

Obsoleted by: 2026 INFORMATIONAL
Updated by: 1871
Network Working Group                    Internet Architecture Board and
Request for Comments: 1602           Internet Engineering Steering Group
Obsoletes: 1310                                               March 1994
Category: Informational


              The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Notice

   This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating
   and documenting Internet Standards.  This document is provisional,
   pending legal review and concurrence of the Internet Society
   Trustees.  It is being published in this form to keep the Internet
   Community informed as to the current status of policies and
   procedures for Internet Standards work.

Abstract

   This document is a revision of RFC 1310, which defined the official
   procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards.

   This revision (revision 2) includes the following major changes:

   (a)  The new management structure arising from the POISED Working
        Group is reflected.  These changes were agreed to by the IETF
        plenary and by the IAB and IESG in November 1992 and accepted by
        the ISOC Board of Trustees at their December 1992 meeting.

   (b)  Prototype status is added to the non-standards track maturity
        levels (Section 2.4.1).

   (c)  The Intellectual Property Rights section is completely revised,
        in accordance with legal advice.  Section 5 of this document
        replaces Sections 5 and 6 of RFC-1310.  The new section 5 has
        been reviewed by legal counsel to the Internet Society.







IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 1]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


   (d)  An appeals procedure is added (Section 3.6).

   (e)  The wording of sections 1 and 1.2 has been changed to clarify
        the relationships that exist between the Internet Society and
        the IAB, the IESG, the IETF, and the Internet Standards process.

   (f)  An Appendix B has been added, listing the contact points for the
        RFC editor, the IANA, the IESG, the IAB and the ISOC. The
        "future issues" are now listed in Appendix C.








































IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 2]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


TABLE OF CONTENTS

   1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................  3
      1.1  Internet Standards. ......................................  4
      1.2  Organizations ............................................  6
      1.3  Standards-Related Publications ...........................  8
      1.4  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................ 10
   2.  NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 11
      2.1  The Internet Standards Track ............................. 11
      2.2  Types of Specifications .................................. 12
      2.3  Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 13
      2.4  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 15
      2.5  Requirement Levels ....................................... 17
   3.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ............................... 19
      3.1  Review and Approval ...................................... 19
      3.2  Entering the Standards Track ............................. 20
      3.3  Advancing in the Standards Track ......................... 21
      3.4  Revising a Standard ...................................... 22
      3.5  Retiring a Standard ...................................... 22
      3.6  Conflict Resolution and Appeals .......................... 23
   4.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 24
   5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 26
      5.1.  General Policy .......................................... 26
      5.2.  Definitions ............................................. 26
      5.3  Trade Secret Rights ...................................... 27
      5.4.  Rights and Permissions .................................. 27
      5.5.  Notices ................................................. 30
      5.6.  Assurances .............................................. 31
   6.  REFERENCES ................................................... 34
   APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................. 35
   APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS ....................................... 35
   APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES ........................................ 36
   Security Considerations .......................................... 37
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 37

1.  INTRODUCTION

   This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet
   community for the standardization of protocols and procedures.  The
   Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society
   that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by
   the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group.






IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 3]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


   1.1  Internet Standards

      The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
      autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host
      communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and
      procedures defined by Internet Standards.  There are also many
      isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which
      are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.

      Internet Standards were once limited to those protocols composing
      what has been commonly known as the "TCP/IP protocol suite".
      However, the Internet has been evolving towards the support of
      multiple protocol suites, especially the Open Systems
      Interconnection (OSI) suite.  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 may apply
      only to the application of the protocol or procedure in the
      Internet context, not to the specification of the protocol itself.

      In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
      independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
      operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
      recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.

      The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
      open and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to
      be flexible.


















IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 4]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      o    These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and
           objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting
           Internet Standards.  They provide ample opportunity for
           participation and comment by all interested parties.  At each
           stage of the standardization process, a specification is
           repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings
           and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is made
           available for review via world-wide on-line directories.

      o    These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and
           adopting generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate
           specification is 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.

      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
      places an urgency on timely development of standards.  The
      Internet standardization rules described here are intended to
      balance these conflicting goals.  The process is believed to be as
      short and simple as possible without undue sacrifice of technical
      competence, prior testing, or openness and fairness.

      In summary, the goals for the Internet standards process are:

      *    technical excellence;

      *    prior implementation and testing;

      *    clear, short, and easily understandable documentation;

      *    openness and fairness; and

      *    timeliness.

      In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
      straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development
      and several iterations of review by the Internet community and



IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 5]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the
      appropriate body (see below), and is published.  In practice, the
      process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating
      specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider
      the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance
      of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the
      difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification
      for the Internet community.

      From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to
      remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
      requirements and technology into its design and implementation.
      Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software,
      and services that support it should anticipate and embrace this
      evolution as a major tenet of Internet philosophy.

      The procedures described in this document are the result of three
      years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
      increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
      Comments and suggestions are invited for improving these
      procedures.

      The remainder of this section describes the organizations and
      publications involved in Internet standardization.  Section 2
      presents the nomenclature for different kinds and levels of
      Internet standard technical specifications and their
      applicability.  Section 3 describes the process and rules for
      Internet standardization.  Section 4 defines how relevant
      externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and
      controlled by other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled in
      the Internet standardization process.  Section 5 presents the
      rules that are required to protect intellectual property rights
      and to assure unrestricted ability for all interested parties to
      practice Internet Standards.

   1.2  Organizations

      The following organizations are involved in the Internet standards
      process.

      *    IETF

           The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a loosely self-
           organized group of people who make technical and other
           contributions to the engineering and evolution of the
           Internet and its technologies.  It is the principal body



IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 6]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


           engaged in the development of new Internet Standard
           specifications, although it is not itself a part of the
           Internet Society.  The IETF is composed of individual Working
           Groups, which are grouped into Areas, each of which is
           coordinated by one or more Area Directors.  Nominations to
           the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering
           Steering Group are made by a nominating committee selected at
           random from the ranks of regular IETF meeting attendees who
           have volunteered to serve as nominating committee members.

      *    ISOC

           Internet standardization is an organized activity of the
           Internet Society (ISOC).  The ISOC is a professional society
           that is concerned with the growth and evolution of the
           worldwide Internet, with the way in which the Internet is and
           can be used, and with the social, political, and technical
           issues that arise as a result.  The ISOC Board of Trustees is
           responsible for approving appointments to the Internet
           Architecture Board from among the nominees submitted by the
           IETF nominating committee.

      *    IESG

           The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible
           for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet
           Standards process.  As part of the Internet Society, it
           administers the Internet Standards process according to the
           rules and procedures given in this document, which have been
           accepted and ratified by the Internet Society Trustees.  The
           IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with
           entry into and movement along the "standards track", as
           described in section 3 of this document, including final
           approval of specifications as Internet Standards.  The IESG
           is composed of the IETF Area Directors and the chairperson of
           the IETF, who also serves as the chairperson of the IESG.

      *    IAB

           The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is a technical advisory
           group of the Internet Society.  It is chartered by the
           Internet Society Trustees to provide oversight of the
           architecture of the Internet and its protocols, and to serve
           in the context of the Internet Standards process as a body to
           which the decisions of the IESG may be appealed (as described
           in section 3.6 of this document).  The IAB is responsible for



IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 7]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


           approving appointments to the IESG from among the nominees
           submitted by the IETF nominating committee.

      Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is
      urged to participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups
      and to attend IETF meetings.  In many cases, active Working Group
      participation is possible through email alone; furthermore,
      Internet video conferencing is being used experimentally to allow
      remote participation.  Participation is by individual technical
      contributors rather than formal representatives of organizations.
      The process works because the IETF Working Groups display a spirit
      of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity;
      IETF participants recognize that the greatest benefit for all
      members of the Internet community results from cooperative
      development of technically superior protocols and services.

      Members of the IESG and IAB are nominated for two-year terms by a
      committee that is drawn from the roll of recent participation in
      the IETF and chartered by the ISOC Board of Trustees.  The
      appointment of IESG and of IAB members are made from these
      nominations by the IAB and by the ISOC Board of Trustees,
      respectively.

      The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) is not directly part of
      the standards process.  It investigates topics considered to be
      too uncertain, too advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to
      be the subject of Internet standardization.  When an IRTF activity
      generates a specification that is sufficiently stable to be
      considered for Internet standardization, the specification is
      processed through the IETF using the rules in this document.

   1.3  Standards-Related Publications

      1.3.1  Requests for Comments (RFCs)

         Each distinct version of a specification is published as part
         of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series.  This
         archival series is the official publication channel for
         Internet standards documents and other publications of the
         IESG, IAB, and Internet community.  RFCs are available for
         anonymous FTP from a number of Internet hosts.

         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, from early discussion of new research concepts



IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 8]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         to status memos about the Internet.  RFC publication is the
         direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general
         direction of the IAB.

         The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in
         reference [5].  Every RFC is available in ASCII text, but some
         RFCs are also available in PostScript.  The PostScript version
         of an RFC may contain material (such as diagrams and figures)
         that is not present in the ASCII version, and it may be
         formatted differently.

         *********************************************************
         *  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.  *
         *                                                       *
         *********************************************************

         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 3.1.3 below.

         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 "STDxxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its
         place in the RFC series.

         Not all specifications of protocols or services for the
         Internet should or will become Internet Standards.  Such non-
         standards track specifications are not subject to the rules for
         Internet standardization.  Generally, they will be published
         directly as RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor and the
         IESG.  These RFCs will be marked "Prototype", "Experimental" or
         "Informational" as appropriate (see section 2.3).

         ********************************************************
         *   It is important to remember that not all RFCs      *
         *   are standards track documents, and that not all    *
         *   standards track documents reach the level of       *
         *   Internet Standard.                                 *
         ********************************************************



IAB - IESG                                                      [Page 9]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      1.3.2  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 simply removed from the Internet
         Draft directory.  At any time, an Internet Draft may be
         replaced by a more recent version of the same specification,
         restarting the six-month timeout period.

         An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a
         specification; specifications are published through the RFC
         mechanism described in the previous section.  Internet Drafts
         have no formal status, are not part of the permanent archival
         record of Internet activity, and are subject to change or
         removal at any time.

         ********************************************************
         *   Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft    *
         *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-*
         *   Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance     *
         *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
         ********************************************************

         Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track
         specification that may reasonably be expected to be published
         as an RFC using the phrase "Work in Progress", without
         referencing an Internet Draft.

   1.4  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)

      Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other
      parameters that must be uniquely assigned.  Examples include
      version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers.
      The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
      (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the
      Internet.  The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned
      numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [3].




IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 10]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some
      protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet
      Standard.  For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP
      is a Standard.  A particular value within a category may be
      assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification
      requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be
      Experimental, or it may be private.  Note that assignment of a
      number to a protocol is independent of, and does not imply,
      acceptance of that protocol as a standard.

      Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values,
      so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or
      private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA.  Private
      protocols often become public.  Programmers are often tempted to
      choose a "random" value or to guess the next unassigned value of a
      parameter; both are hazardous.

      The IANA is expected to avoid frivolous assignments and to
      distinguish different assignments uniquely.  The IANA accomplishes
      both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol
      or service to which a value is to be assigned.  Judgment on the
      adequacy of the description resides with the IANA.  In the case of
      a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding
      technical specifications provide the required documentation for
      IANA.  For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential
      any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page)
      writeup is still required for an assignment.

2.  NOMENCLATURE

   2.1  The Internet Standards Track

      Specifications that are destined to become Internet Standards
      evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards
      track".  These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft
      Standard", and "Standard" -- are defined and discussed below in
      Section 3.2.

      Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet
      Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and
      the recognition of new requirements.  The nomenclature and
      procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement
      of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of
      descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet
      Standards.  A set of maturity levels is defined in Section 3.3 to
      cover these and other "off-track" specifications.



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 11]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


   2.2  Types of Specifications

      Specifications subject to the Internet standardization process
      fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and
      Applicability Statements (AS).

      2.2.1  Technical Specification (TS)

         A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol,
         service, procedure, convention, or format.  It may completely
         describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may
         leave one or more parameters or options unspecified.  A TS may
         be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material
         from other specifications by reference to other documents
         (which may or may not be Internet Standards).

         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, is
         defined by an Applicability Statement.

      2.2.2  Applicability Statement (AS)

         An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
         circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a
         particular Internet capability.  An AS may specify uses for TSs
         that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 4.

         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.

         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.

         The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance
         specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 12]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         particular class of Internet systems, such as Internet routers
         or Internet hosts.

         An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards
         track than any standards-track TS to which the AS applies.  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.

         An AS may refer to a TS that is either a standards-track speci-
         fication or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity
         level of "Prototype", "Experimental", or "Historic" (see
         section 2.4).

      Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
      standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
      TSs.  For example, Technical Specifications that are developed
      specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of
      applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a
      single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information.
      In such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately
      distributing the information among several documents just to
      preserve the formal AS/TS distinction.  However, a TS that is
      likely to apply to more than one domain of applicability should be
      developed in a modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by
      multiple ASs.

   2.3  Standards Track Maturity Levels

      ASs and TSs go through stages of development, testing, and
      acceptance.  Within the Internet standards process, these stages
      are formally labeled "maturity levels".

      This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
      characteristics of specifications at each level.

      2.3.1  Proposed Standard

         The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
         Standard".  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.




IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 13]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         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.  Typically, such a
         specification will be published initially with Experimental or
         Prototype status (see below), and moved to the standards track
         only after sufficient implementation or operational experience
         has been obtained.

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

         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 customer base is not
         normally advisable.

      2.3.2  Draft Standard

         A specification from which at least two independent and
         interoperable implementations have been developed, and for
         which sufficient successful operational experience has been
         obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  This
         is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that
         the specification is mature and will be useful.

         A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
         stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
         implementation.  A Draft Standard may still require additional
         or more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
         implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 14]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale
         use in production environments.

      2.3.3  Internet Standard

         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.

         A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final
         specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve
         specific problems encountered.  In most circumstances, it is
         reasonable for vendors to deploy implementations of draft
         standards into the customer base.

   2.4  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

      Not every TS or AS is on the standards track.  A TS may not be
      intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for
      eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
      track.  A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent
      Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or
      disfavor.

      Specifications not on the standards track are labeled with one of
      four off-track maturity levels: "Prototype, "Experimental",
      "Informational", and "Historic".  There are no time limits
      associated with these non-standard track labels, and the documents
      bearing these labels are not Internet standards in any sense.  As
      the Internet grows, there is a growing amount of credible
      technical work being submitted directly to the RFC Editor without
      having been gone through the IETF.  It is possible that such
      outside submissions may overlap or even conflict with ongoing IETF
      activities.  In order for the best technical result to emerge for
      the community, we believe that the such outside submissions should
      be given the opportunity to work within IETF to gain the broadest
      possible consensus.

      It is also possible that supporters of a view different from the
      IETF may wish to publish their divergent view.  For this reason,
      it is important that, ultimately, authors should have the
      opportunity to publish Informational and Experimental RFCs should



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 15]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      they wish to.  However, it is also possible that this could open a
      loophole in which developers could try to bypass the IETF
      consensus process completely by publishing an Informational RFC
      (and relying on the prestige of the RFC series to gain community
      support for their document).

      For all these reasons, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed to
      the following policy for publishing Info and Exp RFCs:

      1.   The RFC Editor will bring to the attention of the IESG all
           Informational and Experimental submissions that the RFC
           Editor feels may be related to, or of interest to, the IETF
           community.

      2.   The IESG will review all such referrals within a fixed length
           of time and make a recommendation on whether to publish, or
           to suggest that the author bring their work within the IETF.

      3.   If the IESG recommends that the work be brought within the
           IETF, but the author declines the invitation, the IESG may
           add disclaimer text into the standard boilerplate material
           added by the RFC Editor (e.g., "Status of this memo").

           2.4.1  Prototype

              For new protocols which affect core services of the
              Internet or for which the interactions with existing
              protocols are too complex to fully assimilate from the
              written specification, the IESG may request that
              operational experience be obtained prior to advancement to
              Proposed Standard status.  In these cases, the IESG will
              designate an otherwise complete specification as
              "Prototype". This status permits it to be published as an
              RFC before it is entered onto the standards track.  In
              this respect, "Prototype" is similar to "Experimental",
              except that it indicates the protocol is specifically
              being developed to become a standard, while "Experimental"
              generally indicates a more exploratory phase of
              development.

           2.4.2  Experimental

              The "Experimental" designation on a TS 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



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 16]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


              archival record of the work.  An Experimental
              specification may be the output of an organized Internet
              research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), or
              it may be an individual contribution.

              Documents intended for Experimental status should be
              submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication.  The
              procedure is intended to expedite the publication of any
              responsible Experimental specification, subject only to
              editorial considerations, and to verification that there
              has been adequate coordination with the standards process.

           2.4.3  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.

              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 4 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the
              permission of the owner.

           2.4.4  Historic

              A TS or AS 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.)

        2.5  Requirement Levels

           An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to
           each of the TSs to which it refers:






IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 17]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      (a)  Required:  Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified
           by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance.  For
           example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet
           systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.

      (b)  Recommended:  Implementation of the referenced TS is not
           required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or
           generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability
           in the domain of applicability of the AS.  Vendors are
           strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and
           protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should
           omit them only if the omission is justified by some special
           circumstance.

      (c)  Elective:  Implementation of the referenced TS is optional
           within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS
           creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS.  However, a
           particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular
           user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific
           environment.

      As noted in Section 2.4, there are TSs that are not in the
      standards track or that have been retired from the standards
      track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.
      Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for
      such TSs:

      (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered appropriate for use only
           in limited or unique circumstances.  For example, the usage
           of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should
           generally be limited to those actively involved with the
           experiment.

      (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.

      The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general requirement
      level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section.
      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.






IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 18]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


3.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

   3.1  Review and Approval

      A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
      advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track --
      must be approved by the IESG.

      3.1.1  Initiation of Action

         Typically, a standards action is initiated by a recommendation
         to the appropriate IETF Area Director by the individual or
         group that is responsible for the specification, usually an
         IETF Working Group.

         After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
         cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter
         or advance in the Internet standardization process shall be
         made available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an
         Internet Draft for a period of time that permits useful
         community review, at least two weeks, before submission to the
         IESG with a recommendation for action.

      3.1.2  IESG Review and Approval

         The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the
         applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections
         3.2 and 3.3 of this document).

         The IESG shall determine if an independent technical review of
         the specification is required, and shall commission one when
         necessary.  This may require creating a new Working Group, or
         an existing group may agree to take responsibility for
         reviewing the specification.  When a specification is
         sufficiently important in terms of its potential impact on the
         Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG shall
         form an independent technical review and analysis committee to
         prepare an evaluation of the specification.  Such a committee
         is commissioned to provide an objective basis for agreement
         within the Internet community that the specification is ready
         for advancement.

         The IESG shall communicate its findings to the IETF to permit a
         final review by the general Internet community.  This "last-
         call" notification shall be via electronic mail to the IETF
         mailing list.  In addition, for important specifications there



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 19]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         shall be a presentation or statement by the appropriate Working
         Group or Area Director during an IETF plenary meeting.  Any
         significant issues that have not been resolved satisfactorily
         during the development of the specification may be raised at
         this time for final resolution by the IESG.

         In a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after issuing
         the last-call notification to the IETF mailing list, the IESG
         shall make its final determination on whether or not to approve
         the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision
         via email.

      3.1.3  Publication

         Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the
         RFC Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC.  The
         specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts
         directory.

         An official summary of standards actions completed and pending
         shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter.
         This shall constitute the "journal of record" for Internet
         standards actions.  In addition, the IESG shall publish a
         monthly summary of standards actions completed and pending in
         the Internet Monthly Report, which is distributed to all
         members of the IETF mailing list.

         Finally, the IAB shall publish quarterly an "Internet Official
         Protocol Standards" RFC, summarizing the status of all Internet
         protocol and service specifications, both within and outside
         the standards track.

   3.2  Entering the Standards Track

      A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may
      originate from:

      (a)  an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),

      (b)  independent activity by individuals, or

      (c)  an external organization.

      Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that
      enter the standards track.  In cases (b) and (c), the work might
      be tightly integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 20]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      Group, or it might be offered for standardization without prior
      IETF involvement.  In most cases, a specification resulting from
      an effort that took place outside of an IETF Working Group will be
      submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and
      refinement.  If necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be
      created.

      For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated
      with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to
      afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
      of the specification.  If a Working Group is unable to resolve all
      technical and usage questions, additional independent review may
      be necessary.  Such reviews may be done within a Working Group
      context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically
      for that purpose.  Ad hoc review committees may also be convened
      in other circumstances when the nature of review required is too
      small to require the formality of Working Group creation.  It is
      the responsibility of the appropriate IETF Area Director to
      determine what, if any, review of an external specification is
      needed and how it shall be conducted.

   3.3  Advancing in the Standards Track

      A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
      least six (6) months.

      A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at
      least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has
      occurred, whichever comes later.

      These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity
      for community review without severely impacting timeliness.  These
      intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the
      corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
      publication, the date of IESG approval of the action.

      A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
      advances through the standards track.  At each stage, the IESG
      shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
      specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
      recommended action.  Minor revisions are expected, but a
      significant revision may require that the specification accumulate
      more experience at its current maturity level before progressing.
      Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,
      the IESG may recommend that the revision be treated as a new
      document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 21]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      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 corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-at-
      level clock.

      When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
      Standard level but has remained at the same status 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.
      Following each such review, the IESG shall approve termination or
      continuation of the development. This decision shall be
      communicated to the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF 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.

   3.4  Revising a Standard

      A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
      through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
      completely new specification.  Once the new version has reached
      the Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version,
      which will move to Historic status.  However, in some cases both
      versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the
      requirements of an installed base.  In this situation, the
      relationship between the previous and the new versions must be
      explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another
      appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see
      Section 2.2.2).

   3.5  Retiring a Standard

      As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new
      Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that
      one or more existing Internet Standards for the same function



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 22]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      should be retired.  In this case, the IESG shall approve a change
      of status of the superseded specification(s) from Standard to
      Historic.  This recommendation shall be issued with the same
      Last-Call and notification procedures used for any other standards
      action.

   3.6  Conflict Resolution and Appeals

      IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which
      sometimes requires difficult compromises between differing
      technical solutions.  However, there are times when even
      reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.  To
      achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be
      resolved with a process of open review and discussion.
      Participants in a Working Group may disagree with Working Group
      decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are
      not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working
      Group made a technical choice which essentially will not work.
      The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process, and
      the latter is an assertion of technical error.  These two kinds of
      disagreements may have different kinds of final outcome, but the
      resolution process is the same for both cases.

      Working Group participants always should first attempt to discuss
      their concerns with the Working Group chair.  If this proves
      unsatisfactory, they should raise their concerns with an IESG Area
      Director or other IESG member.  In most cases, issues raised to
      the level of the IESG will receive consideration by the entire
      IESG, with the relevant Area Director or the IETF Chair being
      tasked with communicating results of the discussion.

      For the general community as well as Working Group participants
      seeking a larger audience for their concerns, there are two
      opportunities for explicit comment.  (1) When appropriate, a
      specification that is being suggested for advancement along the
      standards track will be presented during an IETF plenary.  At that
      time, IETF participants may choose to raise issues with the
      plenary or to pursue their issues privately, with any of the
      relevant IETF/IESG management personnel.  (2) Specifications that
      are to be considered by the IESG are publicly announced to the
      IETF mailing list, with a request for comments.

      Finally, if a problem persists, the IAB may be asked to adjudicate
      the dispute.





IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 23]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      *    If a concern involves questions of adequate Working Group
           discussion, the IAB will attempt to determine the actual
           nature and extent of discussion that took place within the
           Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record
           and upon comments of other Working Group participants.

      *    If a concern involves questions of technical adequacy, the
           IAB may convene an appropriate review panel, which may then
           recommend that the IESG and Working Group re-consider an
           alternate technical choice.

      *    If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical
           approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working
           Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
           Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
           Working Group.  The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points
           of view and the development of technical options, allowing
           the general Internet community to show preference by making
           its own choices, rather than by having legislated decisions.


4.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

   Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish
   standards documents for network protocols and services.  When these
   external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is
   desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to
   establish Internet Standards relating to these external
   specifications.

   There are two categories of external specifications:

   (1)  Open Standards

        Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as
        ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, develop a variety of protocol and
        service specifications that are similar to Technical
        Specifications defined here.  National and international groups
        also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to
        Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-
        specific detail concerned with the practical application of
        their standards.







IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 24]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


   (2)  Vendor Specifications

        A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely
        used in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as
        if it were a "standard".  Such a specification is not generally
        developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is
        controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.

   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
   Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an
   "Internet version" of an existing external specification unless an
   explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.  However,
   there are several ways in which an external specification that is
   important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be
   adopted for Internet use.

   (a)  Incorporation of an Open Standard

        An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
        standard by reference.  The reference must be to a specific
        version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or
        by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the
        organization that is responsible for the specification.

        For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference
        the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2].  Whenever possible,
        the referenced specification shall be made available online.

   (b)  Incorporation of a Vendor Specification

        Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by
        reference to a specific version of the vendor standard.  If the
        vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily
        available, the IESG may request that it be published as an
        Informational RFC.

        For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within
        the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the
        requirements of section 5 below, and in general the
        specification shall be made available online.

        The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary
        specification over the technically equivalent and competing
        specifications of other vendors by making it "required" or
        "recommended".




IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 25]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


   (c)  Assumption

        An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification
        and develop it into an Internet TS or AS.  This is acceptable if
        (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in
        compliance with the requirements of section 5 below, and (2)
        change control has been conveyed to IETF by the original
        developer of the specification.  Continued participation in the
        IETF work by the original owner is likely to be valuable, and is
        encouraged.

   The following sample text illustrates how a vendor might convey
   change control to the Internet Society:

        "XXXX Organization asserts that it has the right to transfer to
        the Internet Society responsibility for further evolution of the
        YYYY protocol documented in References (1-n) below.  XXXX
        Organization hereby transfers to the Internet Society
        responsibility for all future modification and development of
        the YYYY protocol, without reservation or condition."


5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

   5.1.  General Policy

      In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
      intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
      large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.

   5.2.  Definitions

      As used in this section, the following terms have the indicated
      meanings:

      o    "Trade secrets" are confidential, proprietary information.

      o    "Contribution" means any disclosure of information or ideas,
           whether in oral, written, or other form of expression, by an
           individual or entity ("Contributor").

      o    "Standards track documents" are specifications and other
           documents that have been elevated to the Internet standards
           track in accordance with the Internet Standards Process.





IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 26]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      o    "Copyrights" are purportedly valid claims to copyright in all
           or part of a contribution to standards work, whether or not
           the contribution becomes a standards track document,
           including but not limited to any works by third parties that
           the contribution is based on or incorporates.

      o    "ISOC" refers to the Internet Society and its trustees,
           officers, employees, contractors, and agents, as well as the
           IAB, IETF, IESG, IRTF, IRSG, and other task forces,
           committees, and groups coordinated by the Internet Society.

      o    "Standards work" is work involved in the creation, testing,
           development, revision, adoption, or maintenance of an
           Internet standard that is carried out under the auspices of
           ISOC.

      o    "Internet community" refers to the entire set of persons,
           whether individuals or entities, including but not limited to
           technology developers, service vendors, and researchers, who
           use the Internet, either directly or indirectly, and users of
           any other networks which implement and use Internet
           Standards.

   5.3  Trade Secret Rights

      Except as otherwise provided under this section, ISOC will not
      accept, in connection with standards work, any idea, technology,
      information, document, specification, work, or other contribution,
      whether written or oral, that is a trade secret or otherwise
      subject to any commitment, understanding, or agreement to keep it
      confidential or otherwise restrict its use or dissemination;  and,
      specifically, ISOC does not assume any confidentiality obligation
      with respect to any such contribution.

   5.4.  Rights and Permissions

      In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
      various forms and from many persons.  To facilitate the wide
      dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to establish
      specific understandings concerning any copyrights, patents, patent
      applications, or other rights in the contribution.  The procedures
      set forth in this section apply to contributions submitted after 1
      April 1994.  For Internet standards documents published before
      this date (the RFC series has been published continuously since
      April 1969), information on rights and permissions must be sought
      directly from persons claiming rights therein.



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 27]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      5.4.1.  All Contributions

         By submission of a contribution to ISOC, and in consideration
         of possible dissemination of the contribution to the Internet
         community, a contributor is deemed to agree to the following
         terms and conditions:

         l.   Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a
              perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right
              and license under any copyrights in the contribution to
              reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and
              prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate
              all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce,
              distribute and perform or display publicly any such
              derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to
              authorize others to do so.

         2.   Contributor acknowledges that ISOC has no duty to publish
              or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution.

         3.   Contributor grants ISOC permission to reference the
              name(s) and address(s) of the contributor as well as other
              persons who are named as contributors.

         4.   Where the contribution was prepared jointly with others,
              or is a work for hire, the contributor represents and
              warrants that the other owner(s) of rights have been
              informed of the rights and permissions granted to ISOC and
              that any required authorizations have been obtained.
              Copies of any such required authorizations will be
              furnished to ISOC, upon request.

         5.   Contributor acknowledges and agrees that ISOC assumes no
              obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to
              any aspect of the contribution, and warrants that the the
              contribution does not violate the rights of others.

         6.   All material objects in which contributions are submitted
              to ISOC become the property of ISOC and need not be
              returned to the contributor.

         Where appropriate, written confirmation of the above terms and
         conditions will be obtained in writing by ISOC, usually by
         electronic mail;  however, a decision not to obtain such
         confirmation in a given case shall not act to revoke the prior
         grant of rights and permissions with respect to the



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 28]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


         contribution as provided herein.  Except as provided below, the
         Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat, or a person
         designated by the Executive Director, will be responsible for
         obtaining written confirmations.

         In the case of IETF Working Groups, the responsibility for
         identifying the principal contributor(s) for purposes of
         obtaining written confirmation of the above rights and
         permissions will be assumed by the Editor or Chair of the
         particular Group.  While only those persons named as principal
         contributor(s) will generally be requested to provide written
         confirmation, it is the responsibility of all contributors to
         standards work to inform the IETF Secretariat of any
         proprietary claims in any contributions and to furnish the
         Secretariat with any required confirmation.

         Where any person participating in standards work asserts any
         proprietary right in a contribution, it is the responsibility
         of such person to so inform the Editor or Chair of the group,
         promptly, in writing.  The Editor or Chair will then determine
         whether to list the person as a principal contributor, or to
         revise the document to omit the particular contribution in
         question.

      5.4.2. Standards Track Documents


         (A)  ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any
              standards, including but not limited to standards labelled
              Proposed, Draft or Internet Standards, which can only be
              practiced using technology or works that are subject to
              known copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
              rights, except with the prior written assurance of the
              owner of rights that:

              l.   ISOC may, without cost, freely implement and use the
                   technology or works in its standards work;

              2.   upon adoption and during maintenance of an Internet
                   Standard, any party will be able to obtain the right
                   to implement and use the technology or works under
                   specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms; and

              3.   the party giving the assurance has the right and
                   power to grant the licenses and knows of no other
                   copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 29]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


                   rights that may prevent ISOC and members of the
                   Internet community from implementing and operating
                   under the standard.

         (B)  ISOC disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
              existence of or for evaluating any copyrights, patents,
              patent applications, or other rights, on behalf of or for
              the benefit of any member of the Internet community, and
              ISOC takes no position on the validity or scope of any
              such rights.  Further, ISOC will take no position on the
              ownership of inventions made during standards work, except
              for inventions of which an employee or agent of the
              Internet Society is a joint inventor.  In the latter case,
              the Internet Society will make its rights available under
              license to anyone in the Internet community in accordance
              with the written assurances set forth below.

   5.5.  Notices

      (A)  When a written assurance has been obtained as set forth
           below, the relevant standards track documents shall include
           the following notice:

                "__________(name of rights' owner) has provided written
                assurance to the Internet Society that any party will be
                able to obtain, under reasonable, nondiscriminatory
                terms, the right to use the technology covered
                by__________(list copyrights, patents, patent
                applications, and other rights) to practice the
                standard.  A copy of this assurance may be obtained from
                the Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat.   The
                Internet Society takes no position on the validity or
                scope of the copyrights, patents, patent applications,
                or other rights, or on the appropriateness of the terms
                and conditions of the assurances.  The Internet Society
                does not make any representation there are no other
                rights which may apply to the practice of this standard,
                nor that it has made any effort to identify any such
                rights.  For further information on the Internet
                Society's procedures with respect to rights in standards
                and standards-related documentation, see RFC_____,
                dated________."

      (B)  ISOC encourages all interested parties to bring to its
           attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of
           any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 30]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


           pertaining to Internet Standards.  For this purpose, each
           standards document will include the following invitation:

                "The Internet Society invites any interested party to
                bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent
                applications, or other proprietary rights which purport
                to cover technology or works that may be required to
                practice this standard.  Please address the information
                to the Executive Director of the Internet Engineering
                Task Force Secretariat."

      (C)  When applicable, the following sentence will be included in
           the notice:

                "As of __________, no information about any copyrights,
                patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
                rights has been received."

      (D)  The following copyright notice and disclaimer will be
           included in all ISOC standards-related documentation:

                "Copyright (c) ISOC (year date).  Permission is granted
                to reproduce, distribute, transmit and otherwise
                communicate to the public any material subject to
                copyright by ISOC, provided that credit is given to the
                source.  For information concerning required
                permissions, please contact the Executive Director of
                the Internet Engineering Task Force Secretariat."

                ISOC hereby informs the Internet community and other
                persons that any standards, whether or not elevated to
                the Internet Standard level of maturity, or any
                standards-related documentation made available under the
                auspices of ISOC are provided on an "AS IS" basis and
                ISOC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
                INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
                MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR
                THAT ANY STANDARD OR DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
                RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

   5.6.  Assurances

      The agreement on assurances set forth below will normally be
      entered into between the owner of rights and ISOC at the time a
      standards track document in which proprietary rights are claimed
      reaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity:



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 31]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


           This is an agreement between ______________(hereinafter
      called "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf of
      itself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors and
      agents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering
      Steering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other task
      forces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet Society
      (hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users of
      the Internet and users of any other networks which implement and
      use Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC called
      "Internet community").  This agreement takes effect when signed on
      behalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society.

           The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have rights
      in patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and
      other proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter called
      "Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the Internet
      community to implement and operate under the standards set forth
      in ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the listed
      standards and any similar or related standards now existing or
      later developed are together hereinafter called "Standards").  The
      Rights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A.
      The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed in
      Schedule A from time to time, and, in particular, immediately
      prior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet Standard
      level of maturity in accordance with the Internet Standards
      Process, and to inform the Executive Director of the Internet
      Engineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of any
      new Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list in
      Schedule A.

           The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will derive
      benefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community to
      implement and operate under the Standards without interference of
      any of the Rights.  The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt,
      or continue to maintain the Standards unless written assurances
      are given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights.
      Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above and
      other good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes the
      assurances set forth herein.

           The Rights Holder grants to ISOC a cost-free, perpetual,
      non-exclusive, world-wide license under the Rights with respect to
      implementing and operating under the Standards.  The license
      extends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards without
      limit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose,
      test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain,



IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 32]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


      withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare derivative
      works in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and to
      authorize others to do so.  The Rights Holder also grants ISOC
      permission to use the name and address of Rights Holder in
      connection with the Standards.

           The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in any
      trade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the trade
      secrets available without restriction to the Internet community.
      The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes no
      obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any
      aspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do not
      violate the rights of others.

           The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder shall
      grant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary of
      this agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide license
      under the Rights, with respect to operating under the Standards
      for a reasonable royalty and under other terms which are
      reasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that all
      members of the Internet community will be able to operate under
      the Standards at a minimal cost.  The license discussed in this
      paragraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test,
      enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs, and
      hardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards.
      Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying the
      terms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any other
      license under the Rights previously or later granted by the Rights
      Holder.

           A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible on
      the Internet, and shall become effective immediately when the
      member of the Internet community executes it and posts it for
      delivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically.
      The initial version of the license shall be in the form attached
      as Schedule B.

           The Rights Holder represents and warrants that its rights are
      sufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the other
      assurances recited in this agreement.  The Rights Holder further
      represents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of any
      other party in any country which would block or impede the ability
      of ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate under
      the Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder from
      granting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement.




IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 33]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


           This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC to
      propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or any
      other standard.

6.  REFERENCES

   [1]  Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, RFC
        1600, USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994.

   [2]  ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
        Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.

   [3]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
        1340, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.

   [4]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.

   [5]  Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.





























IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 34]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ANSI: American National Standards Institute
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
AS:   Applicability Statement
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International
         Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization;
         ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.
IAB:  Internet Architecture Board
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
IP:   Internet Protocol
IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
ISO:  International Organization for Standardization
ISOC: Internet Society
MIB:  Management Information Base
OSI:  Open Systems Interconnection
RFC:  Request for Comments
TCP:  Transmission Control Protocol
TS:   Technical Specification


APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS

To contact the RFC Editor, send an email message to: "rfc-
editor@isi.edu".

To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword or
parameter assignment send an email message to: "iana@isi.edu".

To contact the IESG, send an email message to: "iesg@cnri.reston.va.us".

To contact the IAB, send an email message to: "iab-contact@isi.edu".

To contact the Executive Director of the ISOC, send an email message to
"amr@isoc.org".









IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 35]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES

It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following areas
should be considered.

o    Policy Recommendations and Operational Guidelines

     Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical
     specifications for hardware and software required for computer
     communication across interconnected networks.  The Internet itself
     is composed of networks operated by a great variety of
     organizations, with diverse goals and rules.  However, 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.  Specific rules for establishing
     policy recommendations and operational guidelines for the Internet
     in an open and fair fashion should be developed, published, and
     adopted by the Internet community.

o    Industry Consortia

     The rules presented in Section 4 for external standards should be
     expanded to handle industry consortia.

o    Tracking Procedure

     It has been suggested that there should be a formal procedure for
     tracking problems and change requests as a specification moves
     through the standards track.  Such a procedure might include
     written responses, which were cataloged and disseminated, or simply
     a database that listed changes between versions.  At the present
     time, there are not sufficient resources to administer such a
     procedure.

     A simpler proposal is to keep a change log for documents.












IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 36]

RFC 1602               Internet Standards Process             March 1994


o    Time Limit

     An explicit time limit (e.g., 3 months) has been suggested for IESG
     resolution concerning a standards action under the rules of Section
     3.1.2.  If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason,
     the IETF would have to be explicitly notified.

o    Bug Reporting

     There is no documented mechanism for an individual community member
     to use to report a problem or bug with a standards-track
     specification.  One suggestion was that every standards RFC should
     include an email list for the responsible Working Group.


Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Authors' Addresses

   Christian Huitema, IAB Chairman
   INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
   2004 Route des Lucioles
   BP 109
   F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
   France

   Phone:  +33 93 65 77 15

   EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR


   Phill Gross, IESG Chairman
   Director of Broadband Engineering
   MCI Data Services Division
   2100 Reston Parkway, Room 6001
   Reston, VA 22091

   Phone: +1 703 715 7432
   Fax: +1 703 715 7436
   EMail: 0006423401@mcimail.com







IAB - IESG                                                     [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/