[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Individual Submission                                       S. Moonesamy
Internet Draft                                             June 20, 2010
Obsoletes: 2026 (if approved)
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: December 19, 2010

              The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 4
                    draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00

Abstract

   This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
   the standardization of protocols and procedures.  It defines the
   stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
   document between stages and the types of documents used during this
   process.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2010

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before
   November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in
   some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the
   right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license
   from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials,
   this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards
   Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside
   the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication
   as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.

































S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  INTRODUCTION....................................................5
     1.1  Internet Standards...........................................5
     1.2  The Internet Standards Process...............................5
     1.3  Organization of This Document................................7
   2.  INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................7
     2.1  Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................7
     2.2  Internet-Drafts..............................................8
   3.  INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................9
     3.1  Technical Specification (TS).................................9
     3.2  Applicability Statement (AS)................................10
     3.3  Requirement Levels..........................................10
   4.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................12
     4.1  Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................12
       4.1.1  Proposed Standard.......................................12
       4.1.2  Draft Standard..........................................12
       4.1.3  Internet Standard.......................................13
     4.2  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................14
       4.2.1  Experimental............................................14
       4.2.2  Informational...........................................14
       4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......15
       4.2.4  Historic................................................15
   5.  Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................16
     5.1  BCP Review Process..........................................17
   6.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................17
     6.1  Standards Actions...........................................17
       6.1.1  Initiation of Action....................................18
       6.1.2  IESG Review and Approval................................18
       6.1.3  Publication.............................................19
     6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track............................19
     6.3  Revising a Standard.........................................20
     6.4  Retiring a Standard.........................................21
     6.5  Conflict Resolution and Appeals.............................21
       6.5.1 Working Group Disputes...................................21
       6.5.2 Process Failures.........................................22
       6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure........................23
       6.5.4 Appeals Procedure........................................23
   7.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................24
     7.1  Use of External Specifications..............................24
       7.1.1  Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................24
       7.1.2  Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................25
       7.1.3  Assumption..............................................25
   8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................25
   9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................26
     9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................26
     9.2 Exclusions...................................................27
   10.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................28



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


     10.1.  General Policy............................................28
     10.2   Confidentiality Obligations...............................28
     10.3.  Standards Track Documents.................................28
     10.4.  Determination of Reasonable and
            Non-discriminatory Terms..................................29
   11. TRANSITION.....................................................29
   12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................29
   13. IANA CONSIDERATIONS............................................29
   14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................29
   15. REFERENCES.....................................................29
       AUTHOR'S ADDRESS...............................................29
   APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...................................31
   APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................31






































S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


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 managed on behalf of the Internet
   community by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

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 interconnected networks, which are not connected to the
   global Internet but use the Internet Standards.

   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 normally applies 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.

1.2 The Internet Standards Process

   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
   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.

   The goals of the Internet Standards Process are: o  technical
   excellence; o  prior implementation and testing; o  clear, concise,



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   and easily understood documentation; o  openness and fairness;  and o
   timeliness.

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

   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 must
   be 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
   demands timely development of standards.  The Internet Standards
   Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals.  The process
   is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
   technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
   or openness and fairness.

   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 a number
   of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
   increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


1.3 Organization of This Document

   Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet
   Standards Process.  Section 3 describes the types of Internet
   standard specifications.  Section 4 describes the Internet standards
   specifications track.  Section 5 describes Best Current Practice
   RFCs.  Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet
   standardization.  Section 7 specifies the way in which externally-
   sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
   other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet
   Standards Process.  Section 8 describes the requirements for notices
   and record keeping  Section 9 defines a variance process to allow
   one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document
   Section 14 includes acknowledgments of some of the people involved in
   creation of this document.  Appendix A contains definitions of some
   of the terms used in this document.  Appendix B contains a list of
   frequently-used acronyms.

2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS

2.1 Request for Comments (RFCs)

   Each distinct version of an IETF standards-related specification is
   published as part of the RFC Series [RFC4844].  This archival series
   is the official publication channel for Internet standards documents
   and other publications of the IESG, IAB, IRTF and Internet community.
   RFCs can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using the World
   Wide Web, and other Internet document-retrieval systems.

   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 in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
   new research concepts 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 the RFC
   Series Style Guide. Every RFC is available in ASCII text.  Some RFCs
   are also available in other formats.  The other versions 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.









S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 7]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   *********************************************************
   *                                                       *
   *  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" [STD1].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and
   other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
   specification (see section 3).

   Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
   subseries of the RFC series [RFC1311].  When a specification has been
   adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
   "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
   series. (see section 4.1.3)

   Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
   statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
   perform some operations or IETF process function.  These RFCs form
   the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
   additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
   in the RFC series. (see section 5)

   Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
   should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs.  Such non-standards
   track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
   standardization.  Non-standards track specifications may be published
   directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
   of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).

   ********************************************************
   *                                                      *
   *   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. In the same way, not all RFCs   *
   *   which describe current practices have been given   *
   *   the review and approval to become BCPs. See        *
   *   RFC 1796 [RFC1796] for further information.        *
   *                                                      *
   * ******************************************************

2.2 Internet-Drafts

   During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
   document are made available for informal review and comment by



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 8]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   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 expires if it has remained unchanged in the
   Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months without being
   recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC.  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, 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.
   This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as
   the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
   complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
   the "Work in Progress".

3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

   Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into
   one of two categories:  Technical Specification (TS) and
   Applicability Statement (AS).

3.1 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 might or might not be Internet
   Standards).

   A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                  [Page 9]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   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, are defined by an Applicability Statement.

3.2 Applicability Statement (AS)

   An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
   circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
   Internet capability.  An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
   Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.

   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 (see section
   3.3).

   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 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 on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
   For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may not be referenced by an
   AS at the Standard level.

3.3 Requirement Levels

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

   (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



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 10]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   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. For example, the TELNET protocol should be
   implemented by all systems that would benefit from remote access.

   (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.  For example, the
   DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an environment where the
   DECNET protocol is used.

   As noted in section 4.1, 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 these TSs:

   (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered to be 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.

   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.

   The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
   requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
   section. This RFC is updated periodically.  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.





S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 11]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK

   Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
   through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
   These maturity levels -- "Draft Standard", and "Standard" -- are
   defined and discussed in section 4.1.  The way in which
   specifications move along the standards track is described in section
   6.

   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 4.2 to cover these and other
   specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.

4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels

   Internet specifications 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.

4.1.1 Draft Standard

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

   A Draft 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.

   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 Draft Standard
   designation.

   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 12]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   prior to granting Draft Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
   Internet.

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

   Implementors should treat Draft 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 Draft Standards may be changed if problems are found or
   better solutions are identified, deploying implementations of such
   standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended.

4.1.2 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 specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
   number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.

   The specification must have at least two independent and
   interoperable implementations from different code bases, and
   sufficient successful operational experience must has been before it
   obtained, before it may be elevated to the "Internet Standard" level.
   For the purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be
   functionally equivalent or interchangeable components of the system
   or process in which they are used.  If patented or otherwise
   controlled technology is required for implementation, the separate
   implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the
   licensing process. Elevation to Internet Standard indicates that
   there is a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be
   useful.

   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 13]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Internet
   Standard level only if those options or features are removed.

   The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
   implementations which qualify the specification for Internet Standard
   status along with documentation about testing of the interoperation
   of these implementations.  The documentation must include information
   about the support of each of the individual options and features.
   This documentation should be submitted to the Area Director with the
   protocol action request. (see Section 6)

4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

   Not every specification is on the standards track.  A specification
   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 specification may have been superseded by a more recent
   Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.

   Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
   one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
   "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
   are not Internet Standards in any sense.

4.2.1 Experimental

   The "Experimental" designation 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 archival record of the work, subject only to
   editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
   adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).  An
   Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
   research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
   Group, or it may be an individual or independent submission.

4.2.2 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
   (see section 4.2.3).




S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 14]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   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 10 may be published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor.

4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

   Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action or an
   individual submission, documents intended to be published with
   Experimental or Informational status should be submitted directly to
   the RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her
   judgment concerning the editorial suitability of a document for
   publication with Experimental or Informational status, and may refuse
   to publish a document which, in the expert opinion of the RFC Editor,
   is unrelated to Internet activity or falls below the technical and/or
   editorial standard for RFCs.

   To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
   designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
   Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
   will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
   Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
   may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
   IETF community.  The IESG shall review such a referred document
   within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
   published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
   contribution to the Internet Standards Process.

   If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
   IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
   to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document propose
   something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
   established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
   Experimental or Informational RFC.  In these cases, however, the IESG
   may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
   immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
   make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.

   Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
   Working Groups or as individual submissions go through IESG review.
   The review is initiated using the process described in section 6.1.1.

4.2.4 Historic

   A specification 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



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 15]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
   "Historic" is historical.)

   Note: Standards track specifications normally do not depend on other
   standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or
   on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)

5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

   The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
   standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.  A
   BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
   standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
   community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
   on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
   to perform some operations or IETF process function.

   Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
   the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
   computer communication across interconnected networks.  However,
   since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
   variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, 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.

   While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are
   composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the
   technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities
   themselves have an existence as leaders in the community.  As leaders
   in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
   outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
   raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
   statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
   thoughts on other matters.  The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
   structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
   the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
   community's view of that issue.

   Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the
   IETF itself.  For example, this document defines the IETF Standards
   Process and is published as a BCP.






S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 16]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


5.1 BCP Review Process

   Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs
   are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage
   standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and
   immediate instantiation.

   The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards.  The BCP
   is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the
   existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF
   Announce mailing list.  However, once the IESG has approved the
   document, the process ends and the document is published.  The
   resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the
   IETF.

   Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must
   undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this
   document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures
   in section 6.5.

   Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived
   at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.
   Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger
   Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable
   for a content different from Informational RFCs.

   A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
   approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
   retaining its RFC number(s).

6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

   The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of
   the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the
   standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification
   from one maturity level to another.  Although a number of reasonably
   objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available
   to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,
   along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee
   of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any
   specification.  The experienced collective judgment of the IESG
   concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for
   elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential
   component of the decision-making process.

6.1 Standards Actions

   A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 17]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
   be approved by the IESG.

6.1.1 Initiation of Action

   A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
   standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
   section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.
   It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less
   than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
   recommendation for action may be initiated.

   A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
   Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
   copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
   associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
   the IESG.

6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval

   The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
   it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
   the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
   addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
   of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
   maturity level to which the specification is recommended.

   In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these
   determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by
   the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact
   on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,
   at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the
   specification.

   The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG
   consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the
   general Internet community.  This "Last-Call" notification shall be
   via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.  Comments on a
   Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as
   directed in the Last-Call announcement.

   The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in
   those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by
   an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no
   shorter than four weeks.  If the IESG believes that the community
   interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may
   decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a
   current Last-Call period.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 18]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
   specification was submitted.  For example, the IESG may decide to
   consider the specification for publication in a different category
   than that requested.  If the IESG determines this before the Last-
   Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.
   The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based
   on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
   specification being published at a "higher" level than the original
   Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the
   IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
   the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
   controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
   originating from an IETF Working Group.

   In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
   IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
   the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
   electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.

   An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
   appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
   shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
   actions.

   The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
   Protocol Standards" RFC [STD1], summarizing the status of all
   Internet protocol and service specifications.

6.1.3 Publication

   If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
   Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
   specification as an RFC.

6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track

   The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action
   that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards
   track.

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

   The minimum period is intended to ensure adequate opportunity for
   community review without severely impacting timeliness.  The interval
   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 the announcement of the IESG approval of the action.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 19]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
   advances through the standards track.  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.

   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
   a new number) 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 maturity level for forty-
   eight (48) 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 and the
   usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
   shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
   at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
   at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status.  This
   decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
   IETF Announce 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.

6.3 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 be moved 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



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 20]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   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 3.2).

6.4 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 standards track specifications for the same function
   should be retired.  In this case, or when it is felt for some other
   reason that an existing standards track specification should be
   retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old
   specification(s) to Historic.  This recommendation shall be issued
   with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any
   other standards action.  A request to retire an existing standard can
   originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other
   interested party.

6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals

   Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As
   much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be
   made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when
   even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to
   agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts
   must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This
   section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with
   Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal
   processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards
   Process participants ordinarily reach consensus.

6.5.1 Working Group Disputes

   An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or
   not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or
   her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been
   adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group
   has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality
   and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
   jeopardy.  The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group
   process;  the latter is an assertion of technical error.  These two
   types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by
   the same process of review.

   A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
   always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
   who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
   Group as a whole) in the discussion.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 21]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the
   parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area
   Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.
   The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.

   If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
   the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole.  The
   IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
   manner of its own choosing.

   If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
   parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the
   decision to the IAB.  The IAB shall then review the situation and
   attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.

   The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
   not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with
   respect to all questions of technical merit.

6.5.2 Process Failures

   This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to
   ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and
   the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the
   principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that
   is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been
   followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action
   have been met.

   If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
   this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
   IESG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
   then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
   with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
   action is needed.  The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
   complaint to the IETF.

   Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG
   review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review
   the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own
   choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.

   If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
   annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
   decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
   or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
   however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
   only the IESG is empowered to make.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 22]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
   not the Internet standards procedures have been followed.

6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

   Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
   themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
   claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
   rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
   Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
   Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
   such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
   acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
   Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
   situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
   the outcome of its review.

   The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
   with respect to all aspects of the dispute.

6.5.4 Appeals Procedure

   All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
   facts of the dispute.

   All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
   knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

   At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies
   responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define
   the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making
   their decision.

   In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute,
   and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must
   be accomplished within a reasonable period of time.

   [NOTE:  These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not
   establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered
   "reasonable" in all cases.  The Internet Standards Process places a
   premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately
   foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of
   a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be
   reached.]







S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 23]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


7. 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

   Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI,
   ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, 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.  All of these are considered to be
   "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards
   Process.

   (2)  Other Specifications

   Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used in
   the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if they were
   a "standards".  Such a specification is not generally developed in an
   open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is controlled by the
   vendor, vendors, or organization that produced it.

7.1 Use of External Specifications

   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
   Internet community will not standardize a specification 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.

7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard

   An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
   standard by reference.  For example, many Internet Standards
   incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII"
   [ASCII].  Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
   available online.



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 24]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications

   Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to
   a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the
   requirements of section 10.  If the other proprietary specification
   is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be
   published as an Informational RFC.

   The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary
   specification over technically equivalent and competing
   specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification
   "required" or "recommended".

7.1.3 Assumption

   An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and
   develop it into an Internet specification.  This is acceptable if (1)
   the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with
   the requirements of section 10, and (2) change control has been
   conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for
   the specification or for specifications derived from the original
   specification.

8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING

   Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
   Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
   publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to
   the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part
   of the Internet Standards Process.  For purposes of this section, the
   organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet
   Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working
   Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees.

   For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by
   electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made
   sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested
   parties to effectively participate.  The announcement shall contain
   (or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to
   support the participation of any interested individual.  In the case
   of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda
   that specifies the standards-related issues that will be discussed.

   The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity
   shall include at least the following:

   o  the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent
   to a charter); o  complete and accurate minutes of meetings; o  the



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 25]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists;  and o  all
   written contributions from participants that pertain to the
   organization's standards-related activity.

   As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
   Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
   responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working
   Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must
   make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and
   included in the archives.  Also, the Working Group chair is
   responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and
   accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings.  Internet-Drafts
   shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole purpose of
   preserving an historical record of Internet standards activity.

9. VARYING THE PROCESS

   This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which
   Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product
   of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section
   5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to
   be replaced.

   While, when published, this document represents the community's view
   of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be
   met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it
   cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to
   time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new
   version.  Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are
   used for any other BCP.

   In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures
   leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be
   situations where the procedures provide no guidance.  In these cases
   it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described
   below.

9.1 The Variance Procedure

   Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
   no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc
   committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or
   advance it within, the standards track even though some of the
   requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG
   may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines
   that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to
   outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from
   noncompliance with the requirements in this document.  In exercising



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 26]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical
   merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
   goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance,
   (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral
   and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's
   ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible.  In
   determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to
   limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document
   and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it
   determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
   community.

   The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the
   precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a
   variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including
   consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.
   The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft.  The IESG
   shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to
   allow for community comment upon the proposal.

   In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
   IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
   the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
   electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.  If the variance
   is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request
   that it be published as a BCP.

   This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waiving of some
   provision of this document is felt to be required.  Permanent changes
   to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP
   process.

   The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process.

9.2 Exclusions

   No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt
   any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or
   consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings
   and mailing list discussions.

   Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be
   subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3
   (first sentence), 6.5 and 9.







S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 27]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

10.1 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.

10.2 Confidentiality Obligations

   No information or document that is subject to any requirement of
   confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination may be
   submitted as a Contribution or otherwise considered in any part of
   the IETF Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of any
   confidentiality obligation with respect to any Contribution.  Each
   Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
   generated automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the
   Contribution is confidential or subject to any privilege, can be
   disregarded for all purposes, and will be of no force or effect.

10.3 Standards Track Documents

   (A)  Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on
   the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the
   IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the
   document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or claimed
   rights.  Where implementations are required before advancement of a
   specification, only implementations that have, by statement of the
   implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with any such rights, or
   claimed rights, shall be considered for the purpose of showing the
   adequacy of the specification.

   (B)  The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
   existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed
   copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the
   fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no
   position on the validity or scope of any such rights.

   (C)  Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the
   IETF Trust shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights,
   a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG of the relevant
   Internet standards track specification(s), any party will be able to
   obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or
   works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon
   the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable,
   non-discriminatory terms.  The Working Group proposing the use of the
   technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 28]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   may assist the IETF Trust in this effort.  The results of this
   procedure shall not affect advancement of a specification along the
   standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a
   delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances.  The results
   will, however, be recorded by the IETF Trust, and made available.
   The IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in
   any RFC published containing the specification.

10.4 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms

   The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
   of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a
   technology has been fulfilled in practice.  It will instead use the
   normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to
   verify that the terms for use are reasonable.  If the two unrelated
   implementations of the specification that are required to advance
   from Draft Standard to Internet Standard have been produced by
   different organizations or individuals or if the "significant
   implementation and successful operational experience" required to
   advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the
   assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree,
   non-discriminatory.  This assumption may be challenged during the
   Last-Call period.

11. Transition

   As a transition mechanism, RFCs with a Proposed Standard status are
   automatically reclassified as Draft Standard.  RFCs which have held
   the status of Draft Standard for at least twenty-four (24) months are
   automatically reclassified as Internet Standard.

12. Security Considerations

   This memo relates to the Internet Standards Process, not any
   particular technology.  There are security considerations when
   adopting any technology, but there are no known issues of security
   with the Internet Standards Process.

13. IANA Considerations

   This document does not require the IANA to take any action.

14. Acknowledgements

   There have been a number of people involved with the development of
   the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years.
   The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602
   before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 29]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill
   Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,
   to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to
   Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their
   reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and
   to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input
   on the final version.

   In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of
   the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various
   incarnations of the POISED Working Group.

   Most of the text in this document has been copied from RFC 2606 which
   was written by Scott O. Bradner.

15.  References

15.1.  Informative References

   [STD1]     Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
              USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.

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

   [RFC1311]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
              USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.

   [RFC1796]  Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are
              Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995.

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844,
              July 2007.

Author's Address

   S. Moonesamy
   76, Ylang Ylang Avenue
   Quatre Bornes
   Mauritius

   Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com









S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 30]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


Appendix A: Definitions of Terms

   IETF Area - A management division within the IETF.  An Area consists
   of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing.  An
   Area is managed by one or two Area Directors.

   Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area.  The Area Directors
   along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering Steering
   Group (IESG).

   Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists
   in the management of the IETF standards process.

   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the

   IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair.  The IESG is responsible for
   the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the standards
   approval board for the IETF.

   interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable"
   means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path.

   Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
   consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
   (see section 6.1.2)


Appendix B: 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 Telecommunication 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
   IRSG      Internet Research Steering Group
   IRTF:     Internet Research Task Force
   ISO:      International Organization for Standardization
   ISOC:     Internet Society
   MIB:      Management Information Base



S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 31]


Internet Draft        Internet Standards Process         June 20, 2010


   OSI:      Open Systems Interconnection
   TCP:      Transmission Control Protocol
   TS:       Technical Specification
   WWW:      World Wide Web















































S. Moonesamy             Expires December 2010                 [Page 32]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/