[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-fenner-obso...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

INFORMATIONAL

Network Working Group                                          B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4794                          AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264                                            December 2006
Category: Informational


                          RFC 1264 Is Obsolete

Status of This Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

Abstract

   RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely
   different time in the life of the Internet.  It prescribed rules to
   protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have
   various undesirable properties.  In today's Internet, there are so
   many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
   believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
   get in the way.
























Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


1.  Introduction

   RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when
   publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including
   requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc.  These rules
   were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or
   unscalable new protocols.

   Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness.
   Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the
   IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner.

   The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to
   require additional implementation experience when it appears to be
   needed.  We do not need any more rules than that.  RFC 2026 says:

      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.

2.  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete

   Therefore, this document reclassifies RFC 1264 as historic.  While
   that does not prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring
   implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026
   rules, it removes the broad, general requirement from all routing
   documents.

3.  Working Group Procedures

   Some working groups within the Routing Area have developed
   procedures, based on RFC 1264, to require implementations before
   forwarding a document to the IESG.  This action does not prevent
   those working groups from continuing with these procedures if the
   working group prefers to work this way.  We encourage working groups
   to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output.

   RFC 1264 required a MIB module to be in development for a protocol;
   this is still encouraged in a broad sense.  This is not meant to be
   limiting, however; protocol management and manageability should be



Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


   considered in the context of current IETF management protocols.  In
   addition, [RTG-REQS] contains a description of a "Manageability
   Requirements" section; this is not currently a requirement but should
   be considered.

4.  Security Considerations

   While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the
   security-related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the
   requirement for a Security Considerations section) suffice.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to
   produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to
   today's Internet.  This work was eventually abandoned when it was
   realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings,
   Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that
   there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the
   goals of the IETF.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1264]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
              Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
              October 1991.

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

6.2.  Informative References

   [RTG-REQS] Farrel, A., Andersson, L., and A. Doria, "Requirements for
              Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts", Work in
              Progress, October 2005.

Author's Address

   Bill Fenner
   AT&T Labs - Research
   1 River Oaks Place
   San Jose, CA  95134-1918
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 493-8505
   EMail: fenner@research.att.com



Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
   AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
   EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
   THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
   IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
   PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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






Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 4]


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