idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits12777/draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 336 has weird spacing: '... itself as lo...' == Line 1398 has weird spacing: '... to perta...' == Line 1438 has weird spacing: '...for the purpo...' -- 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 (April 1996) is 9531 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) == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 1494, 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1796 (ref. '6') Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Bradner 3 Internet-Draft Harvard University 4 Editor 5 April 1996 7 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 9 a proposed revision of part of RFC 1602 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 16 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 17 and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 18 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 25 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 26 1id- abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 27 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 28 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 29 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 31 Abstract 33 This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for 34 the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the 35 stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a 36 document between stages and the types of documents used during this 37 process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and 38 copyright issues associated with the standards process. 40 Table of Contents 42 Status of this Memo.................................................1 43 Abstract............................................................1 44 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................3 45 1.1 Internet Standards...........................................3 46 1.2 The Internet Standards Process...............................4 47 1.3 Organization of This Document................................5 48 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................6 49 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................6 50 2.2 Internet-Drafts..............................................7 51 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................8 52 3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................8 53 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................8 54 3.3 Requirement Levels...........................................9 55 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................10 56 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................11 57 4.1.1 Proposed Standard.......................................11 58 4.1.2 Draft Standard..........................................12 59 4.1.3 Internet Standard.......................................12 60 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................12 61 4.2.1 Experimental............................................13 62 4.2.2 Informational...........................................13 63 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......13 64 4.2.4 Historic................................................14 65 5. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................14 66 5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................15 67 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................16 68 6.1 Standards Actions...........................................16 69 6.1.1 Initiation of Action....................................16 70 6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval................................17 71 6.1.3 Publication.............................................18 72 6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track............................18 73 6.3 Revising a Standard.........................................19 74 6.4 Retiring a Standard.........................................19 75 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals.............................20 76 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes...................................20 77 6.5.2 Process Failures.........................................21 78 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure........................21 79 6.5.4 Appeals Procedure........................................22 80 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................22 81 7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................23 82 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................23 83 7.1.2 Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................23 84 7.1.3 Assumption..............................................24 85 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................24 86 9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................25 87 9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................25 88 9.2 Exclusions...................................................26 89 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................26 90 10.1. General Policy............................................26 91 10.2 Confidentiality Obligations...............................27 92 10.3. Rights and Permissions....................................27 93 10.3.1. All Contributions......................................27 94 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents..............................28 95 10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and 96 Non-discriminatory Terms................................28 97 10.4. Notices...................................................29 98 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................30 99 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................30 100 13. REFERENCES.....................................................30 101 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................31 102 15 .AUTHORS' ADDRESS...............................................32 104 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................32 106 1. INTRODUCTION 108 This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet 109 community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The 110 Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society 111 that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by 112 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering 113 Steering Group (IESG). 115 1.1 Internet Standards 117 The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of 118 autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host 119 communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and 120 procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many 121 isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which are 122 not connected to the global Internet but use the Internet Standards. 124 The Internet Standards Process described in this document is 125 concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are 126 used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the 127 TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or 128 standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet 129 Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol 130 or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the 131 protocol itself. 133 In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 134 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 135 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 136 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 137 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. 139 1.2 The Internet Standards Process 141 In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is 142 straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development 143 and several iterations of review by the Internet community and 144 revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the 145 appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the 146 process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating 147 specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider 148 the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of 149 establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty 150 of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the 151 Internet community. 153 The goals of the Internet Standards Process are: 154 o technical excellence; 155 o prior implementation and testing; 156 o clear, concise, and easily understood documentation; 157 o openness and fairness; and 158 o timeliness. 160 The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 161 open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to 162 be flexible. 164 o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and 165 objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet 166 Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and 167 comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the 168 standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed 169 and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic 170 mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide 171 on-line directories. 173 o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 174 generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification 175 must be implemented and tested for correct operation and 176 interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in 177 increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as 178 an Internet Standard. 180 o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to 181 the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the 182 standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to 183 be vital in achieving the goals listed above. 185 The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior 186 implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested 187 parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the 188 other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology 189 demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards 190 Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process 191 is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing 192 technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, 193 or openness and fairness. 195 From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, 196 an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new 197 requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users 198 of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and 199 services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution 200 as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. 202 The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 203 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and 204 increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. 206 1.3 Organization of This Document 208 Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet 209 Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of Internet 210 standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards 211 specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice 212 RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet 213 standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally- 214 sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by 215 other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet 216 Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices 217 and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow 218 one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document 219 Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect 220 intellectual property rights in the context of the development and 221 use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of 222 some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12 223 notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document. 224 Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14 225 contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document. 226 Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix A 227 contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. 229 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 230 2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 232 Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 233 is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document 234 series. This archival series is the official publication channel for 235 Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, 236 and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of 237 Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other 238 Internet document-retrieval systems. 240 The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 241 the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see 242 Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of 243 topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of 244 new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC 245 publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the 246 general direction of the IAB. 248 The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. 249 Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available 250 in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material 251 (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII 252 version, and it may be formatted differently. 254 ********************************************************* 255 * * 256 * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * 257 * specifications: the ASCII text version is the * 258 * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * 259 * complete and accurate specification of the standard, * 260 * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * 261 * * 262 ********************************************************* 264 The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is 265 summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official 266 Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and 267 other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service 268 specification (see section 3). 270 Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' 271 subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been 272 adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label 273 "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 274 series. (see section 4.1.3) 276 Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about 277 statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to 278 perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form 279 the 'BCP' (Best Current Practice) subseries of the RFC series. When 280 a specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the additional 281 label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC 282 series. (see section 5) 284 Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet 285 should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards 286 track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet 287 standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published 288 directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion 289 of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). 291 ******************************************************** 292 * * 293 * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * 294 * are standards track documents, and that not all * 295 * standards track documents reach the level of * 296 * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * 297 * which describe current practices have been given * 298 * the review and approval to become BCPs. See * 299 * RFC-1796 [6] for further information. * 300 * * 301 ******************************************************** 303 2.2 Internet-Drafts 305 During the development of a specification, draft versions of the 306 document are made available for informal review and comment by 307 placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is 308 replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving 309 working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 310 the process of review and revision. 312 An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained 313 unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months 314 without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is 315 simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an 316 Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same 317 specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. 319 An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; 320 specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in 321 the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are 322 subject to change or removal at any time. 324 ******************************************************** 325 * * 326 * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * 327 * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * 328 * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * 329 * with an Internet-Draft. * 330 * * 331 ******************************************************** 333 Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification 334 that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the 335 phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. 336 This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long 337 as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a 338 complete and understandable document with or without the reference to 339 the "Work in Progress". 341 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 343 Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into 344 one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and 345 Applicability Statement (AS). 347 3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 349 A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, 350 procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of 351 the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more 352 parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- 353 contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications 354 by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet 355 Standards). 357 A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 358 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently 359 specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that 360 effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use 361 within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the 362 particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different 363 system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. 365 3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 367 An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 368 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 369 Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not 370 Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7. 372 An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 373 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges 374 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be 375 implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use 376 of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section 377 3.3). 379 An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted 380 "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal 381 servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- 382 based database servers. 384 The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, 385 commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of 386 Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. 388 An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 389 than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1). 390 For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS 391 at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at 392 the Standard level. 394 3.3 Requirement Levels 396 An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each 397 of the TSs to which it refers: 399 (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by 400 the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, 401 IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the 402 TCP/IP Protocol Suite. 404 (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not 405 required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally 406 accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain 407 of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 408 include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs 409 in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is 410 justified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET 411 protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit 412 from remote access. 414 (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional 415 within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS 416 creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a 417 particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user 418 may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For 419 example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an 420 environment where the DECNET protocol is used. 422 As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the 423 standards track or that have been retired from the standards 424 track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. 425 Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for 426 these TSs: 428 (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use 429 only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage 430 of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally 431 be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. 433 (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate 434 for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because 435 of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 436 status. 438 Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a 439 standards- track document may combine an AS and one or more related 440 TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed 441 specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of 442 applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a 443 single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In 444 such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately 445 distributing the information among several documents just to preserve 446 the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 447 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a 448 modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. 450 The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general 451 requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this 452 section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more 453 detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular 454 protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found 455 in appropriate ASs. 457 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 459 Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve 460 through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". 461 These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and 462 "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in 463 which specifications move along the standards track is described in 464 section 6. 466 Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, 467 further evolution often occurs based on experience and the 468 recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of 469 Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet 470 Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to 471 indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of 472 maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other 473 specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. 475 4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 477 Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, 478 and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages 479 are formally labeled "maturity levels". 481 This section describes the maturity levels and the expected 482 characteristics of specifications at each level. 484 4.1.1 Proposed Standard 486 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed 487 Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a 488 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" 489 level. 491 A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved 492 known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received 493 significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community 494 interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience 495 might result in a change or even retraction of the specification 496 before it advances. 498 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is 499 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed 500 Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will 501 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard 502 designation. 504 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience 505 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that 506 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies 507 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 508 Internet. 510 A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with 511 respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may 512 waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance 513 to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and 514 necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. 516 Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature 517 specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain 518 experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. 519 However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if 520 problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying 521 implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive 522 environment is not recommended. 524 4.1.2 Draft Standard 526 A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable 527 implementations from different code bases have been developed, and 528 for which sufficient successful operational experience has been 529 obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the 530 purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally 531 equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in 532 which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology 533 is required for implementation, the separate implementations must 534 also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. 535 Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating 536 a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful. 538 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable 539 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the 540 specification. In cases in which one or more options or features 541 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 542 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 543 level only if those options or features are removed. 545 The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific 546 implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet 547 Standard status along with documentation about testing of the 548 interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must 549 include information about the support of each of the individual 550 options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the 551 Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6) 553 A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite 554 stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an 555 implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or 556 more widespread field experience, since it is possible for 557 implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate 558 unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production 559 environments. 561 A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, 562 and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems 563 encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to 564 deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive 565 environment. 567 4.1.3 Internet Standard 569 A specification for which significant implementation and successful 570 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the 571 Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be 572 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of 573 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 574 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 575 community. 577 A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a 578 number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. 580 4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 582 Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification 583 may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended 584 for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards 585 track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent 586 Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. 588 Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with 589 one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", 590 "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels 591 are not Internet Standards in any sense. 593 4.2.1 Experimental 595 The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that 596 is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification 597 is published for the general information of the Internet technical 598 community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to 599 editorial considerations and to verification that there has been 600 adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An 601 Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet 602 research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working 603 Group, or it may be an individual contribution. 605 4.2.2 Informational 607 An "Informational" specification is published for the general 608 information of the Internet community, and does not represent an 609 Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational 610 designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a 611 very broad range of responsible informational documents from many 612 sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification 613 that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process 614 (see section 4.2.3). 616 Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet 617 community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards 618 Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as 619 Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the 620 concurrence of the RFC Editor. 622 4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 624 Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents 625 intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status 626 should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will 627 publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already 628 been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts 629 they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are 630 easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this 631 publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor 632 is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial 633 suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or 634 Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in 635 the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet 636 activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for 637 RFCs. 639 To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational 640 designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards 641 Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor 642 will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or 643 Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, 644 may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the 645 IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document 646 within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be 647 published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a 648 contribution to the Internet Standards Process. 650 If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 651 IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines 652 to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes 653 something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an 654 established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an 655 Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG 656 may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or 657 immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to 658 make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. 660 Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF 661 Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using 662 the process described in section 6.1.1. 664 4.2.4 Historic 666 A specification that has been superseded by a more recent 667 specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is 668 assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the 669 word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of 670 "Historic" is historical.) 672 Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on 673 other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity 674 level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced 675 specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.) 677 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs 679 The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to 680 standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A 681 BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as 682 standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF 683 community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking 684 on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way 685 to perform some operations or IETF process function. 687 Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with 688 the technical specifications for hardware and software required for 689 computer communication across interconnected networks. However, 690 since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great 691 variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user 692 service requires that the operators and administrators of the 693 Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. 694 While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style 695 from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process 696 for consensus building. 698 While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are 699 composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the 700 technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities 701 themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders 702 in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an 703 outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to 704 raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a 705 statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their 706 thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly 707 structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into 708 the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the 709 community's view of that issue. 711 Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the 712 IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards 713 Process and is published as a BCP. 715 5.1 BCP Review Process 717 Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs 718 are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage 719 standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and 720 immediate instantiation. 722 The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP 723 is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the 724 existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF 725 Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the 726 document, the process ends and the document is published. The 727 resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the 728 IETF. 730 Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must 731 undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this 732 document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures 733 in section 6.5. 735 Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived 736 at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. 737 Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger 738 Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable 739 for a content different from Informational RFCs. 741 A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been 742 approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while 743 retaining its RFC number(s). 745 6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 747 The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of 748 the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the 749 standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification 750 from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably 751 objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available 752 to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, 753 along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee 754 of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any 755 specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG 756 concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for 757 elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential 758 component of the decision-making process. 760 6.1 Standards Actions 762 A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, 763 advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must 764 be approved by the IESG. 766 6.1.1 Initiation of Action 768 A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet 769 standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see 770 section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC. 771 It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less 772 than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a 773 recommendation for action may be initiated. 775 A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF 776 Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, 777 copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not 778 associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to 779 the IESG. 781 6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 783 The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to 784 it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for 785 the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in 786 addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity 787 of the specification is consistent with that expected for the 788 maturity level to which the specification is recommended. 790 In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these 791 determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by 792 the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact 793 on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, 794 at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the 795 specification. 797 The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG 798 consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the 799 general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be 800 via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a 801 Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as 802 directed in the Last-Call announcement. 804 The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in 805 those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by 806 an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no 807 shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community 808 interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may 809 decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a 810 current Last-Call period. 812 The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the 813 specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to 814 consider the specification for publication in a different category 815 than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- 816 Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. 817 The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based 818 on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a 819 specification being published at a "higher" level than the original 820 Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the 821 IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend 822 the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant 823 controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not 824 originating from an IETF Working Group. 826 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 827 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 828 the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 829 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. 831 6.1.3 Publication 833 If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC 834 Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the 835 specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be 836 removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 838 An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall 839 appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This 840 shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards 841 actions. 843 The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official 844 Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet 845 protocol and service specifications. 847 6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track 849 The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action 850 that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards 851 track. 853 A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at 854 least six (6) months. 856 A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least 857 four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, 858 whichever comes later. 860 These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for 861 community review without severely impacting timeliness. These 862 intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the 863 corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC 864 publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the 865 action. 867 A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it 868 advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall 869 determine the scope and significance of the revision to the 870 specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the 871 recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant 872 revision may require that the specification accumulate more 873 experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, 874 if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG 875 may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- 876 entering the standards track at the beginning. 878 Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 879 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at 880 all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, 881 desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level 882 in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next 883 standards action on the specification will not always be possible or 884 desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a 885 technical error that does not represent a change in overall function 886 of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 887 cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with 888 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum 889 time-at-level clock. 891 When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet 892 Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for 893 twenty- four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter 894 until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of 895 the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the 896 usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG 897 shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, 898 at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification 899 at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This 900 decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the 901 IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an 902 opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a 903 legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an 904 administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. 906 6.3 Revising a Standard 908 A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress 909 through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a 910 completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the 911 Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which 912 will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both 913 versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements 914 of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between 915 the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the 916 text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an 917 Applicability Statement; see section 3.2). 919 6.4 Retiring a Standard 921 As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new 922 Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one 923 or more existing standards track specifications for the same function 924 should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other 925 reason that an existing standards track specification should be 926 retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old 927 specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued 928 with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any 929 other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can 930 originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other 931 interested party. 933 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 935 Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As 936 much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be 937 made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when 938 even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to 939 agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts 940 must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This 941 section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with 942 Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal 943 processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards 944 Process participants ordinarily reach consensus. 946 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes 948 An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or 949 not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or 950 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been 951 adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group 952 has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality 953 and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 954 jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group 955 process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two 956 types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by 957 the same process of review. 959 A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall 960 always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), 961 who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working 962 Group as a whole) in the discussion. 964 If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the 965 parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area 966 Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. 967 The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute. 969 If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of 970 the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The 971 IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a 972 manner of its own choosing. 974 If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the 975 parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the 976 decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and 977 attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing. 979 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 980 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with 981 respect to all questions of technical merit. 983 6.5.2 Process Failures 985 This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to 986 ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and 987 the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the 988 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that 989 is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been 990 followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action 991 have been met. 993 If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in 994 this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the 995 ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant 996 then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along 997 with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further 998 action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the 999 complaint to the IETF. 1001 Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG 1002 review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review 1003 the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own 1004 choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. 1006 If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be 1007 annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG 1008 decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG, 1009 or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, 1010 however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which 1011 only the IESG is empowered to make. 1013 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or 1014 not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. 1016 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure 1018 Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures 1019 themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are 1020 claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the 1021 rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. 1022 Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of 1023 Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge 1024 such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of 1025 acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the 1026 Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the 1027 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on 1028 the outcome of its review. 1030 The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final 1031 with respect to all aspects of the dispute. 1033 6.5.4 Appeals Procedure 1035 All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the 1036 facts of the dispute. 1038 All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public 1039 knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. 1041 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 1042 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 1043 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 1044 their decision. 1046 In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, 1047 and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must 1048 be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 1050 [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not 1051 establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered 1052 "reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a 1053 premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately 1054 foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of 1055 a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be 1056 reached.] 1058 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1060 Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish 1061 standards documents for network protocols and services. When these 1062 external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is 1063 desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to 1064 establish Internet Standards relating to these external 1065 specifications. 1067 There are two categories of external specifications: 1069 (1) Open Standards 1071 Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, 1072 ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service 1073 specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications 1074 defined here. National and international groups also publish 1075 "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability 1076 Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail 1077 concerned with the practical application of their standards. All 1078 of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the 1079 purposes of the Internet Standards Process. 1081 (2) Other Specifications 1083 Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used 1084 in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if 1085 they were a "standards". Such a specification is not generally 1086 developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is 1087 controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced 1088 it. 1090 7.1 Use of External Specifications 1092 To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the 1093 Internet community will not standardize a specification that is 1094 simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification 1095 unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. 1096 However, there are several ways in which an external specification 1097 that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet 1098 may be adopted for Internet use. 1100 7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard 1102 An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external 1103 standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards 1104 incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" 1105 [2]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be 1106 available online. 1108 7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications 1110 Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference 1111 to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets 1112 the requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary 1113 specification is not widely and readily available, the IESG may 1114 request that it be published as an Informational RFC. 1116 The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary 1117 specification over technically equivalent and competing 1118 specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification 1119 "required" or "recommended". 1121 7.1.3 Assumption 1123 An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and 1124 develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if 1125 (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in 1126 compliance with the requirements of section 10, and (2) change 1127 control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the 1128 specification for the specification or for specifications derived 1129 from the original specification. 1131 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING 1133 Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval 1134 of Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain 1135 a publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it 1136 engages, to the extent that the activity represents the 1137 prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards Process. For 1138 purposes of this section, the organizations involved in the 1139 development and approval of Internet Standards includes the IETF, 1140 the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working Groups, and the Internet 1141 Society Board of Trustees. 1143 For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by 1144 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be 1145 made sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all 1146 interested parties to effectively participate. The announcement 1147 shall contain (or provide pointers to) all of the information that 1148 is necessary to support the participation of any interested 1149 individual. In the case of a meeting, for example, the 1150 announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the standards- 1151 related issues that will be discussed. 1153 The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity 1154 shall include at least the following: 1156 o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent 1157 to a charter); 1158 o complete and accurate minutes of meetings; 1159 o the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and 1160 o all written contributions from participants that pertain to the 1161 organization's standards-related activity. 1163 As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards 1164 Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the 1165 responsibility of the IESG Secretariat except that each IETF Working 1166 Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must 1167 make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and 1168 included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is 1169 responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and 1170 accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that 1171 have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts 1172 directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole 1173 purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards 1174 activity and thus are not retrievable except in special 1175 circumstances. 1177 9. VARYING THE PROCESS 1179 This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which 1180 Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product 1181 of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section 1182 5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to 1183 be replaced. 1185 While, when published, this document represents the community's view 1186 of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be 1187 met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it 1188 cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to 1189 time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new 1190 version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are 1191 used for any other BCP. 1193 In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures 1194 leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be 1195 situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases 1196 it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described 1197 below. 1199 9.1 The Variance Procedure 1201 Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if 1202 no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc 1203 committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or 1204 advance it within, the standards track even though some of the 1205 requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG 1206 may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines 1207 that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to 1208 outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from 1209 noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising 1210 this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical 1211 merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the 1212 goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance, 1213 (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral 1214 and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's 1215 ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In 1216 determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to 1217 limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document 1218 and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it 1219 determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet 1220 community. 1222 The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the 1223 precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a 1224 variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including 1225 consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph. 1226 The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG 1227 shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to 1228 allow for community comment upon the proposal. 1230 In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 1231 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve 1232 the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via 1233 electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance 1234 is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request 1235 that it be published as a BCP. 1237 This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some 1238 provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes 1239 to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP 1240 process. 1242 The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process. 1244 9.2 Exclusions 1246 No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt 1247 any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or 1248 consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings 1249 and mailing list discussions. 1251 Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be 1252 subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3 1253 (first sentence), 6.5 and 9. 1255 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1257 10.1. General Policy 1259 In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 1260 intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at 1261 large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 1263 10.2 Confidentiality Obligations 1265 No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 1266 or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part 1267 of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of 1268 any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. 1270 10.3. Rights and Permissions 1272 In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in 1273 various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the 1274 dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand 1275 any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions. 1277 10.3.1. All Contributions 1279 By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the 1280 contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions 1281 on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he 1282 represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the 1283 contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in 1284 addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the 1285 actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was 1286 made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on 1287 his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and 1288 any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. 1290 l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to 1291 copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may 1292 be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he 1293 represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in 1294 the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, 1295 royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC under any 1296 copyrights in the contribution. This license includes the right 1297 to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and 1298 to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all 1299 or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works 1300 to be of the same scope as the license of the original 1301 contribution. 1303 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty 1304 to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. 1306 3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and 1307 address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he 1308 represents (if any). 1310 4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge 1311 major contributors. 1313 5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the 1314 owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that 1315 no information in the contribution is confidential and that the 1316 ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any 1317 information in the contribution. 1319 6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of 1320 any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the 1321 contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the 1322 contributor. The contributor does not represent that he 1323 personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and 1324 intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization 1325 he represents (if any) or third parties. 1327 7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the 1328 contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and 1329 agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the 1330 contributor. 1332 By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet 1333 Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and 1334 free access to IETF documents for which license and right have 1335 been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this 1336 section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is 1337 perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its 1338 successors or assigns. 1340 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents 1342 (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary 1343 rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on 1344 the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the 1345 IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the 1346 document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or 1347 claimed rights. Where implementations are required before 1348 advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by 1349 statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with 1350 any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the 1351 purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification. 1352 (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the 1353 existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 1354 copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the 1355 fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no 1356 position on the validity or scope of any such rights. 1357 (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the 1358 IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant 1359 of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG 1360 of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any 1361 party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and 1362 distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or 1363 distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) 1364 under openly specified, reasonable, non- discriminatory terms. 1365 The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect 1366 to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF 1367 Executive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure 1368 shall not affect advancement of a specification along the 1369 standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a 1370 delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The 1371 results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, 1372 and made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of 1373 the results be included in any RFC published containing the 1374 specification. 1376 10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 1378 The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance 1379 of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a 1380 technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the 1381 normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to 1382 verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated 1383 implementations of the specification that are required to advance 1384 from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by 1385 different organizations or individuals or if the "significant 1386 implementation and successful operational experience" required to 1387 advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the 1388 assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, 1389 non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the 1390 Last-Call period. 1392 10.4. Notices 1394 (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: 1396 "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 1397 any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed 1398 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 1399 described in this document or the extent to which any license 1400 under such rights might or might not be available; neither does 1401 it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such 1402 rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to 1403 rights in standards-track and standards- related documentation 1404 can be found in BCP-xxx, dated in the future. Copies of claims 1405 of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 1406 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made 1407 to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 1408 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this 1409 specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat." 1411 (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its 1412 attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any 1413 intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. 1414 For this purpose, each standards document shall include the 1415 following invitation: 1417 "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its 1418 attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or 1419 other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be 1420 required to practice this standard. Please address the 1421 information to the IETF Executive Director." 1423 (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 1424 in all ISOC standards-related documentation: 1426 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights 1427 Reserved. 1429 This document and translations of it may be copied and 1430 furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or 1431 otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be 1432 prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in 1433 part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above 1434 copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such 1435 copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may 1436 not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright 1437 notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet 1438 organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing 1439 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 1440 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or 1441 as required to translate it into languages other than English. 1443 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will 1444 not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or 1445 assigns. 1447 This document and the information contained herein is provided 1448 on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY DISCLAIMS ALL 1449 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 1450 ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT 1451 INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 1452 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." 1454 (D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of 1455 proprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track 1456 document, or the technology described or referenced therein, such 1457 document shall contain the following notice: 1459 "The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights 1460 claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained 1461 in this document. For more information consult the online list 1462 of claimed rights." 1464 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1466 There have been a number of people involved with the development of 1467 the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. 1468 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 1469 before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). 1470 Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill 1471 Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, 1472 to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to 1473 Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their 1474 reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and 1475 to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input 1476 on the final version. 1478 In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 1479 the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various 1480 incarnations of the POISED Working Group. 1482 12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 1484 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 1486 13. REFERENCES 1488 [1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 1489 USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1995. 1491 [2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for 1492 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 1494 [3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 1495 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. 1497 [4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1498 USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 1500 [5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, 1501 USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. 1503 [6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are 1504 Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995 1506 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 1508 IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists 1509 of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An 1510 Area is managed by one or two Area Directors. 1511 Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors 1512 along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering 1513 Steering Group (IESG). 1514 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to 1515 transfer files in a TCP/IP network. 1516 gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and 1517 retrieve files in a TCP/IP network. 1518 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists 1519 in the management of the IETF standards process. 1521 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the 1522 IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible 1523 for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the 1524 standards approval board for the IETF. 1525 IETF Secretariat - 1526 interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable" 1527 means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path. 1528 Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of 1529 consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action. 1530 (see section 6.1.2) 1531 online - Relating to information made available over the Internet. 1532 When referenced in this document material is said to be online 1533 when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using 1534 standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or 1535 the WWW. 1536 Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a 1537 specific specification, set of specifications or topic. 1539 15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 1541 Scott O. Bradner 1542 Harvard University 1543 Holyoke Center, Room 813 1544 1350 Mass. Ave. 1545 Cambridge, MA 02138 1546 USA +1 617 495 3864 1548 sob@harvard.edu 1550 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 1552 ANSI: American National Standards Institute 1553 ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency 1554 AS: Applicability Statement 1555 FTP: File Transfer Protocol 1556 ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange 1557 ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the 1558 International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN 1559 treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT. 1560 IAB: Internet Architecture Board 1561 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 1562 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1563 ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol 1564 IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group 1565 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force 1566 IP: Internet Protocol 1567 IRSG Internet Research Steering Group 1568 IRTF: Internet Research Task Force 1569 ISO: International Organization for Standardization 1570 ISOC: Internet Society 1571 MIB: Management Information Base 1572 OSI: Open Systems Interconnection 1573 RFC: Request for Comments 1574 TCP: Transmission Control Protocol 1575 TS: Technical Specification 1576 WWW: World Wide Web