idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits14187/draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2022-05-20) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 50 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 318 has weird spacing: '... itself as lo...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 1995) is 9714 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: '10' is mentioned on line 1083, but not defined == Missing Reference: '6' is mentioned on line 1262, but not defined == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 1253, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1311 (ref. '4') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1543 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 2223) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group S. Bradner 2 Internet-Draft Harvard University 3 Expires in six months Editor 4 October 1995 6 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 8 a proposed revision of part of RFC 1602 10 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 15 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 16 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 24 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 25 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 26 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 27 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 28 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 30 Abstract 32 This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for 33 the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the 34 stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a 35 document between stages and the types of documents used during this 36 process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and 37 copyright issues associated with the standards process. 39 Table of Contents 41 Status of this Memo.................................................1 42 Abstract............................................................1 43 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................... 44 1.1 Internet Standards............................................ 45 1.2 The Internet Standards Process................................ 46 1.3 Organization of This Document................................. 47 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.......................... 48 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................. 49 2.2 Internet-Drafts............................................... 50 2.3 Notices and Record Keeping.................................... 51 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................. 52 3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................. 53 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................. 54 3.3 Requirement Levels............................................ 55 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK..................................... 56 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels............................... 57 4.1.1 Proposed Standard......................................... 58 4.1.2 Draft Standard............................................ 59 4.1.3 Internet Standard......................................... 60 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels........................... 61 4.2.1 Experimental.............................................. 62 4.2.2 Informational............................................. 63 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs........ 64 4.2.4 Historic.................................................. 65 5. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS................................... 66 5.1 Standards Actions............................................. 67 5.1.1 Initiation of Action...................................... 68 5.1.2 IESG Review and Approval.................................. 69 5.1.3 Publication............................................... 70 5.2 Entering the Standards Track.................................. 71 5.3 Advancing in the Standards Track.............................. 72 5.4 Revising a Standard........................................... 73 5.5 Retiring a Standard........................................... 74 5.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals............................... 75 6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs................................. 76 6.1 BCP Review Process............................................ 77 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS............................ 78 8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................... 79 8.1. General Policy............................................... 80 8.2 Confidentiality Obligations.................................. 81 8.3. Rights and Permissions....................................... 82 8.3.1. All Contributions......................................... 83 8.4.2. Standards Track Documents................................. 84 8.4.3 Determination of Reasonable and 85 Non-discriminatory Terms.................................. 86 8.5. Notices...................................................... 88 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................. 89 10. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................... 90 11. REFERENCES....................................................... 91 12 .AUTHORS' ADDRESS................................................. 93 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS..................................... 95 1. INTRODUCTION 97 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 98 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The 99 Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society 100 that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by 101 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering 102 Steering Group. 104 1.1 Internet Standards 106 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 107 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 108 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 109 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 110 isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which are 111 not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards. 113 The Internet standards process described in this document is 114 concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are 115 used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the 116 TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or 117 standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet 118 standards process may apply only to the application of the protocol 119 or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the 120 protocol itself. 122 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 123 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 124 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 125 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 126 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 128 1.2 The Internet Standards Process 130 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 131 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 132 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 133 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 134 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 135 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 136 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 137 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of 138 establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty 139 of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the 140 Internet community. 142 The goals of the Internet standards process are: 143 o technical excellence; 144 o prior implementation and testing; 145 o clear, short, and easily understandable documentation; 146 o openness and fairness; and 147 o timeliness. 149 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 150 open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to 151 be flexible. 153 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 154 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet 155 Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and 156 comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the 157 standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed 158 and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic 159 mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide 160 on-line directories. 162 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 163 generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification 164 must be implemented and tested for correct operation and 165 interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in 166 increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as 167 an Internet Standard. 169 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to 170 the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 171 standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to 172 be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 174 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 175 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 176 parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the 177 other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 178 demands timely development of standards. The Internet standards 179 process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process 180 is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing 181 technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, 182 or openness and fairness. 184 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, 185 an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 186 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users 187 of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and 188 services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution 189 as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 191 The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 192 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 193 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 195 1.3 Organization of This Document 197 Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet 198 standards process, and specifies the requirements for record-keeping 199 and public access to information. Section 3 describes the Internet 200 standards track. Section 4 describes the types of Internet standard 201 specification. Section 5 describes the process and rules for Internet 202 standardization. Section 6 specifies the way in which externally- 203 sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by 204 other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled within the Internet 205 standards process. Section 7 presents the rules that are required to 206 protect intellectual property rights in the context of the 207 development and use of Internet Standards. Section 8 contains a list 208 of numbered references. 210 Appendix A contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. 212 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 214 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 216 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 217 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 218 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 219 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 220 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 221 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other 222 Internet document-retrieval systems. 224 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 225 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 226 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 227 topics, from early discussion of new research concepts to status 228 memos about the Internet. RFC publication is the direct 229 responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the 230 IAB. 232 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. 233 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 234 in PostScript(R). The PostScript(R) version of an RFC may contain 235 material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the 236 ASCII version, and it may be formatted differently. 238 ********************************************************* 239 * * 240 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 241 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 242 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 243 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 244 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 245 * * 246 ********************************************************* 248 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 249 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 250 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 251 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 252 specification (see section 3). 254 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 255 subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been 256 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 257 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 258 series. 260 Some RFCs describe Best Current Practices for the Internet community 261 These RFCs form the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the 262 RFC series. [7] When a specification has been adopted as a BCP, it 263 is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number 264 and its place in the RFC series. 266 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 267 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 268 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 269 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 270 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 271 of the RFC editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 273 ******************************************************** 274 * * 275 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 276 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 277 * standards track documents reach the level of * 278 * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * 279 * which describe current practices have been given * 280 * the review and approval to become BCPs. See * 281 * RFC-1796 for further information. * 282 * * 283 ******************************************************** 285 2.2 Internet-Drafts 287 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 288 document are made available for informal review and comment by 289 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 290 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 291 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 292 the process of review and revision. 294 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 295 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 296 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 297 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 298 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 299 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 301 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; 302 specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in 303 the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 304 subject to change or removal at any time. 306 ******************************************************** 307 * * 308 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 309 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 310 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 311 * with an Internet-Draft. * 312 * * 313 ******************************************************** 315 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 316 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 317 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 318 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long 319 as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 320 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 321 the "Work in Progress". 323 2.3 Notices and Record Keeping 325 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of 326 Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a 327 publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to 328 the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part 329 of the Internet standards process. For purposes of this section, the 330 organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet 331 Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF working 332 groups, and the Internet Society board of trustees. 334 For IETF and working group meetings announcements shall be made by 335 electronic mail to the IETF mailing list and shall be made 336 sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested 337 parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain 338 (or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to 339 support the participation of any interested individual. In the case 340 of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda 341 that specifies the standards-related issues that will be discussed. 343 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 344 shall include at least the following: 346 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 347 to a charter); 348 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 349 o the archives of the working group electronic mail mailing lists; 350 and 351 o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from 352 participants that pertain to the organization's standards-related 353 activity. 355 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet standards 356 process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 357 responsibility of the Executive Director of the IETF. Each IETF 358 working group is expeceted to maintain their own email list archive 359 and must make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured 360 and included in the archives. The entire record is available to any 361 interested party upon request to the Executive Director. Internet 362 drafts that have been removed (for any reason) from the internet- 363 drafts directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the 364 sole purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards 365 activity and thus are not retrievable except in special 366 circumstances. 368 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 370 Specifications subject to the Internet standards process fall into 371 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and 372 Applicability Statement (AS). 374 3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 376 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 377 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 378 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 379 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 380 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 381 by reference to other documents (which may or may not be Internet 382 Standards). 384 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 385 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently 386 specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that 387 effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use 388 within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the 389 particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different 390 system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. 392 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 394 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 395 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 396 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 397 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 6. 399 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 400 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 401 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 402 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 403 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 404 3.3). 406 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 407 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 408 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 409 based database servers. 411 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 412 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 413 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 415 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 416 than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 5.1). 417 For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS 418 at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at 419 the Standard level. 421 An AS may refer to a TS that is either a standards-track 422 specification or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity 423 level of "Experimental" or "Historic" (see section 4.2). 425 3.3 Requirement Levels 427 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 428 of the TSs to which it refers: 430 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 431 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 432 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 433 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 435 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 436 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally 437 accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain 438 of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 439 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 440 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 441 justified by some special circumstance. 443 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 444 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 445 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 446 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user 447 may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. 449 As noted in section 3.2, there are TSs that are not in the 450 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 451 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 452 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 453 these TSs: 455 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use 456 only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 457 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally 458 be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 460 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 461 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because 462 of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 463 status. 465 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 466 standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related 467 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 468 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 469 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 470 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 471 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 472 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 473 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 474 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 475 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 477 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general requirement 478 level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. 479 This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more detailed 480 descriptions of the requirement levels of particular protocols and of 481 individual features of the protocols will be found in appropriate 482 ASs. 484 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 486 Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve 487 through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". 488 These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and 489 "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in 490 which specifications move along the standards track is described in 491 section 5. 493 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, 494 further evolution often occurs based on experience and the 495 recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of 496 Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet 497 Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to 498 indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of 499 maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other 500 specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. 502 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 504 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 505 and acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages 506 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 508 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 509 characteristics of specifications at each level. 511 4.1.1 Proposed Standard 513 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 514 Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a 515 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" 516 level (see section 5). 518 A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved 519 known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 520 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 521 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 522 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 523 before it advances. 525 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 526 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 527 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will 528 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard 529 designation. 531 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 532 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that 533 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 534 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 535 Internet. Typically, such a specification will be published 536 initially with Experimental status (see section 4.2.1), and moved to 537 the standards track only after sufficient implementation or 538 operational experience has been obtained. 540 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with 541 respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may 542 waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance 543 to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and 544 necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 546 Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature 547 specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain 548 experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. 549 However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if 550 problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying 551 implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive 552 customer base is not recommended. 554 4.1.2 Draft Standard 556 A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable 557 implementations from different code bases, and for which sufficient 558 successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated 559 to the "Draft Standard" level. If patented or otherwise controlled 560 technology is required for implementation, the separate 561 implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the 562 licensing process. This is a major advance in status, indicating a 563 strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful. 565 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 566 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 567 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 568 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 569 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 570 level only if those options or features are removed. 572 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 573 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 574 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or 575 more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 576 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate 577 unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production 578 environments. 580 A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, 581 and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems 582 encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to 583 deploy implementations of draft standards into the customer base. 585 4.1.3 Internet Standard 587 A specification for which significant implementation and successful 588 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the 589 Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be 590 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of 591 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 592 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 593 community. 595 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 597 Not every TS or AS is on the standards track. A TS may not be 598 intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for 599 eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 600 track. A TS or AS may have been superseded by a more recent Internet 601 Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 603 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 604 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 605 "Informational", or "Historic". There are no time limits associated 606 with these non-standards track labels, and the documents bearing 607 these labels are not Internet Standards in any sense. 609 4.2.1 Experimental 611 The "Experimental" designation on a TS typically denotes a 612 specification that is part of some research or development effort. 613 Such a specification is published for the general information of the 614 Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work, 615 subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that 616 there has been adequate coordination with the standards process (see 617 below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an 618 organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the 619 IRTF), an IETF working group, or it may be an individual 620 contribution. 622 4.2.2 Informational 624 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 625 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 626 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 627 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 628 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 629 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 630 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 631 (see below). 633 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 634 community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards 635 process by any of the provisions of section 6 may be published as 636 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 637 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 639 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 641 Unless they are the result of IETF working group action, documents 642 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 643 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor . The RFC Editor will 644 publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already 645 been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts 646 the filename will include "-rfced-". The RFC Editor will wait two 647 weeks after this publication for comments before proceeding further. 648 The RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning 649 the editorial suitability of a document for publication with 650 Experimental or Informational status, and may refuse to publish a 651 document which, in the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, falls below 652 the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs. 654 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 655 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet standards 656 process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 657 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 658 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 659 may be related to, or of interest to, the IETF community. The IESG 660 shall review such a referred document within a reasonable period of 661 time, and recommend either that it be published as originally 662 submitted or referred to the IETF as a contribution to the Internet 663 standards process. 665 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 666 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 667 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 668 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 669 established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an 670 Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG 671 may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or 672 immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to 673 make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. 675 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 676 working groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 677 the process described in section 5.1.1. 679 4.2.4 Historic 681 A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent specification or 682 is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the 683 "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the word should be 684 "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is 685 historical.) 687 5. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 689 The mechanics of the Internet standards process involve decisions of 690 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 691 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 692 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 693 objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available 694 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 695 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 696 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 697 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 698 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 699 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 700 component of the decision-making process. 702 5.1 Standards Actions 704 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 705 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 706 be approved by the IESG. 708 5.1.1 Initiation of Action 709 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation to the 710 appropriate IETF Area Director or to the IESG as a whole by the 711 individual or group that is responsible for the specification 712 (usually an IETF Working Group). 714 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 715 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 716 section 2.2), by sending the document in an electronic mail message 717 to the Internet-Drafts address at the IETF Secretariat. It shall 718 remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less than two 719 weeks, that permits useful community review, after which it may be 720 submitted to the the relevant Area Director for review by sending an 721 electronic mail message to the Area Director with a copy to the IESG 722 Secretary, specifying the name of the document and the recommended 723 action. The Area Director, after reviewing the submission, may 724 request that the IESG consider the document for action. 726 5.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 728 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 729 it according to section 5.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 730 the recommended action (see sections 5.3 and 5.4), and shall in 731 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 732 of the specification comports with that expected for the maturity 733 level to which the specification is recommended. 735 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 736 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 737 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 738 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 739 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 740 specification. Such a review shall be commissioned whenever the 741 circumstances surrounding a recommended standards action are 742 considered by the IESG to require a broader basis than is normally 743 available from the IESG itself for agreement within the Internet 744 community that the specification is ready for advancement. The IESG 745 shall communicate the findings of any such review to the IETF. 747 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 748 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 749 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 750 via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list. Comments on a Last- 751 Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent to the email 752 address specified in the Last-Call. 754 In a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after issuing the 755 Last-Call notification to the IETF mailing list, the IESG shall make 756 its final determination of whether or not to approve the standards 757 action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via electronic mail 758 to the IETF mailing list. In those cases in which the IESG believes 759 that the community interest would be served by allowing more time for 760 comment, it may decide to explicitly lengthen the Last-Call period. 761 In those cases in which the proposed standards action involves a 762 document for which no corresponding IETF working group is currently 763 active, the Last-Call period shall be no shorter than four weeks. 765 5.1.3 Publication 767 Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC 768 Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC. The specification 769 shall at that point be removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 771 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 772 appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This 773 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 774 actions. In addition, the IESG shall publish a monthly summary of 775 standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Monthly 776 Report. 778 Finally, the RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet 779 Official Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all 780 Internet protocol and service specifications, both within and outside 781 the standards track. 783 5.2 Entering the Standards Track 785 A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may 786 originate from: 788 (a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group), 790 (b) independent activity by individuals, or 792 (c) an external organization. 794 Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that enter 795 the standards track. In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly 796 integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it 797 might be offered for standardization without prior IETF involvement. 798 In most cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took 799 place outside of an IETF Working Group will be submitted to an 800 appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement. If 801 necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created. 803 For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated with 804 existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to afford 805 adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability of the 806 specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all technical 807 and usage questions, additional independent review may be necessary. 808 Such reviews may be done within a Working Group context, or by an ad 809 hoc review committee established specifically for that purpose. Ad 810 hoc review committees may also be convened in other circumstances 811 when the nature of review required is too small to require the 812 formality of Working Group creation. It is the responsibility of the 813 appropriate IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of 814 an external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted. 816 5.3 Advancing in the Standards Track 818 The procedure described in section 5.1 is followed for each action 819 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 820 track. 822 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 823 least six (6) months. 825 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least 826 four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, 827 whichever comes later. 829 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 830 community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 831 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 832 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 833 publication, the date of IESG approval of the action. 835 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 836 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall 837 determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 838 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 839 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant 840 revision may require that the specification accumulate more 841 experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, 842 if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG 843 may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- 844 entering the standards track at the beginning. 846 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 847 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 848 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 849 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 850 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 851 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 852 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 853 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 854 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 855 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 856 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 857 time-at-level clock. 859 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 860 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 861 twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 862 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of 863 the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the 864 usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG 865 shall approve termination or continuation of the development, at the 866 same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification at the 867 same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This decision 868 shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the IETF 869 mailing list to allow the Internet community an opportunity to 870 comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a legitimate and 871 active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an administrative 872 mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 874 5.4 Revising a Standard 876 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 877 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 878 completely new specification. (Sections 5.1 and 5.3) Once the new 879 version has reached the Standard level, it will usually replace the 880 previous version, which will move to Historic status. However, in 881 some cases both versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor 882 the requirements of an installed base. In this situation, the 883 relationship between the previous and the new versions must be 884 explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another 885 appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see section 886 3.2). 888 5.5 Retiring a Standard 890 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 891 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 892 or more existing Internet Standards for the same function should be 893 retired. In this case, the IESG shall approve a change of status of 894 the superseded specification(s) from Standard to Historic. This 895 recommendation shall be issued with the same Last-Call and 896 notification procedures used for any other standards action. 898 5.6 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 900 IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which 901 sometimes requires difficult compromises between or among different 902 technical proposals. However, there are times when even the most 903 reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve 904 the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved 905 by a process of open review and discussion. This section specifies 906 the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Internet standards 907 issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes whereby 908 IETF Working Groups and other Internet standards process participants 909 ordinarily reach consensus. 911 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 912 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 913 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 914 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 915 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 916 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 917 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 918 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 919 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 920 the same process of review. 922 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 923 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 924 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 925 Group as a whole) in the discussion. If the disagreement cannot be 926 resolved in this way, it shall be brought to the attention of the 927 Area Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is 928 chartered. The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the 929 dispute. If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area 930 Director(s) the matter may be brought before the IESG as a whole. In 931 all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, and 932 the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must be 933 accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 935 A person who disagrees with an IESG decision should first discuss the 936 matter with the IESG chair, who may involve other members of the 937 IESG, or the whole IESG, in the discussion. 939 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 940 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 941 decision to the IAB by sending notice of such appeal to the IAB 942 electronic mail list. The IAB's review of the dispute shall be 943 informed by the findings of the IESG, by any additional 944 representation that the original petitioner(s) or others wish to make 945 in response to the IESG's findings, and by its own investigation of 946 the circumstances and the claims made by all parties. The IAB shall 947 make and announce its decision within a reasonable period of time. 949 [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not 950 establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered 951 "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet standards process places a 952 premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately 953 foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of 954 a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 955 reached.] 957 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 958 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 959 respect to all questions of technical merit. 961 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 962 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 963 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 964 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet standards process. 965 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 966 Trustees, by formal notice to the ISOC electronic mail list. The 967 President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge such an appeal 968 within two weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the 969 petitioner of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the 970 appeal (which shall be completed within a reasonable period of time). 971 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 972 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 974 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 975 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 976 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 977 their decision. 979 6. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 981 Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical 982 specifications for hardware and software required for computer 983 communication across interconnected networks. The Internet itself is 984 composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, 985 with diverse goals and rules. However, good user service requires 986 that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some 987 common guidelines for policies and operations. While these guidelines 988 are generally different in scope and style from protocol standards, 989 their establishment needs a similar process for consensus building. 991 6.1 BCP Review Process 993 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 994 is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing review process 995 applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF announcement mailing list. 997 However, once the IESG has approved the document, the process ends 998 and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed as 999 having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and cannot 1000 become an official Internet Standard. 1002 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 1003 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 5.1, and 5.5 of this 1004 document. It is also under the restrictions of section 5.2 and the 1005 process may be appealed according to the procedures in section 5.6. 1007 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1009 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1010 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1011 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1012 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1013 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1014 specifications. 1016 There are two categories of external specifications: 1018 (1) Open Standards 1020 Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as 1021 ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, develop a variety of protocol and 1022 service specifications that are similar to Technical 1023 Specifications defined here. National and international groups 1024 also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to 1025 Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation- 1026 specific detail concerned with the practical application of their 1027 standards. All of these are considered to be "open external 1028 standards" for the purposes of the Internet standards process. 1030 (2) Vendor Specifications 1032 A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely used 1033 in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if it 1034 were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally 1035 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 1036 controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it. 1038 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1039 Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an 1040 "Internet version" of an existing external specification unless an 1041 explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However, 1042 there are several ways in which an external specification that is 1043 important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be 1044 adopted for Internet use. 1046 (a) Incorporation of an Open Standard 1048 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1049 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1050 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" 1051 [2]. The reference must be to a specific version of the external 1052 standard, e.g., by publication date or by edition number, 1053 according to the prevailing convention of the organization that is 1054 responsible for the specification. Whenever possible, the 1055 referenced specification shall be available online. 1057 (b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification 1059 Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference 1060 to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the vendor- 1061 proprietary specification is not widely and readily available, the 1062 IESG may request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1064 For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within 1065 the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the 1066 requirements of section 8, and the specification shall be made 1067 available online. 1069 The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary 1070 specification over the technically equivalent and competing 1071 specification(s) of other vendors by making any incorporated 1072 vendor specification "required" or "recommended". 1074 (c) Assumption 1076 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1077 develop it into an Internet TS or AS. This is acceptable only if 1078 (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in 1079 compliance with the requirements of section 8, and (2) change 1080 control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the 1081 specification. Sample text illustrating the way in which a vendor 1082 might convey change control to the Internet Society is contained 1083 in [10]. 1085 8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1087 8.1. General Policy 1089 In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 1090 intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at 1091 large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 1093 8.2 Confidentiality Obligations 1095 No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 1096 or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part 1097 of the Internet standards process, and there must be no assumption of 1098 any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. 1100 8.3. Rights and Permissions 1102 In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in 1103 various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the 1104 dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand 1105 any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions. 1107 8.3.1. All Contributions 1109 By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the 1110 contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions 1111 on his own behalf and/or on behalf of the organization he represents. 1112 Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the 1113 contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual 1114 submitter(s)represent that each other named contributor was made 1115 aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his 1116 own behalf and/or on behalf of any organization he represents. 1118 l. Contributor grants a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, 1119 world-wide right and license under Contrributor's copyrights to 1120 publish and distribute in any way the contribution, and to develop 1121 derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of 1122 the contribution, and that such derivative works will inherit the 1123 right and license of the original contribution. 1125 2. The contributor acknowledges that the IETF has no duty to publish 1126 or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution. 1128 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and 1129 address(s) of the contributor. 1131 4. The contributor represents that there no limits to the 1132 contributor's ability to make the grants and acknowledgments above 1133 that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. 1135 8.3.2. Standards Track Documents 1137 (A) The IESG shall not approve any TS, or advance any TS along the 1138 standards track which can be practiced only by using technology 1139 that is subject to known patents or patent applications, or other 1140 proprietary rights, except with the prior written assurance of the 1141 claimer of such rights that upon approval by the IESG of the 1142 relevant Internet standards track TS(s), any party will be able to 1143 obtain the right to implement and use the technology or works 1144 under specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. 1146 (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1147 existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 1148 copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the 1149 fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no 1150 position on the validity or scope of any such rights. 1152 8.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 1154 The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance 1155 of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a 1156 technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the 1157 normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to 1158 verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated 1159 implementations of the standard that are required to advance from 1160 Proposed to Draft have been produced by different organizations or 1161 individuals or if the "significant implementation and successful 1162 operational experience" required to advance from Draft to full 1163 Standard has been achieved the assumption is that the terms must be 1164 reasonable and to some degree, non-discriminatory. This assumption 1165 may be challenged during the Last-Call period. 1167 8.4. Notices 1169 (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: 1171 "The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any 1172 claimed encumbrances to the implementation or use of the 1173 technology described in this document, nor that it has made any 1174 effort to identify any such intellectual property rights. For 1175 further information on the IETF's procedures with respect to 1176 rights in standards and standards-related documentation, see 1177 RFC-1602bis, dated in the future. Copies of all claims of 1178 intellectual properly rights submitted to the IETF for posting 1179 and copies of all statements of the ability to obtain the right 1180 to implement and use the technology under reasonable, non- 1181 discriminatory terms that have been received by the IETF 1182 referring to this technology may be found in the "rights" 1183 subdirectory in the RFC archives." 1185 (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1186 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any 1187 intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. 1188 For this purpose, each standards document shall include the 1189 following invitation: 1191 "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its 1192 attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or 1193 other proprietary rights which purport to cover technology that 1194 may be required to practice this standard. Please address the 1195 information to the Executive Director of the Internet 1196 Engineering Task Force Secretariat." 1198 (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 1199 in all ISOC standards-related documentation: 1201 Copyright (year) The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 1202 This document may be copied and furnished to others without 1203 restriction of any kind provided the document is not modified 1204 in any way, such as by removing this copyright notice or 1205 references to The Internet Society or other Internet 1206 organizations. 1208 The document may be modified as needed for the purpose of 1209 developing Internet standards provided this notice is (1) 1210 included in the modified document without change and (2) the 1211 person or organization making the modifications clearly 1212 identifies, within the modified document, the changes that have 1213 been made and who made them. 1215 The permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 1216 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 1218 This document is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET 1219 SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 1220 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD 1221 PARTY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR 1222 FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1224 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1226 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1227 the documents defining the IETF standards process over the years. 1228 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1229 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1230 Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill 1231 Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, 1232 to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, 1233 and to Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert and Dick Holleman for 1234 their reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described 1235 herein. 1237 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1238 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1239 incarnations of the POISED working group. 1241 10. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1243 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1245 12. REFERENCES 1247 [1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 1248 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994. 1250 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1251 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1253 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 1254 USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992. 1256 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1257 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 1259 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, 1260 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. 1262 ti 3 [6] Postel, J., T. Li, and Y. Rekhter "Best Current 1263 Practices, RFC 1818, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Cisco 1264 Systems, August 1995. 1266 [7] foo, "Standard Form for Conveyance of Change Control to the 1267 Internet Society", RFC xxxx. 1269 12 ..AUTHORS' ADDRESS 1271 Scott O. Bradner Harvard University Holyoke Center, Room 813 1272 1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge, MA 02138 USA +1 617 495 3864 1274 sob@harvard.edu 1276 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1277 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1278 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1279 AS: Applicability Statement 1280 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1281 ITU-TS: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN 1282 treaty organization; ITU-TS was formerly called CCITT. 1283 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1284 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1285 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1286 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1287 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1288 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1289 IP: Internet Protocol 1290 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1291 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1292 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1293 ISOC: Internet Society 1294 MIB: Management Information Base 1295 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1296 RFC: Request for Comments 1297 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1298 TS: Technical Specification