idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits62927/draft-kucherawy-rfc3967bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3967, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 20, 2015) is 2490 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCxxxx' is mentioned on line 138, but not defined Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Kucherawy, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft July 20, 2015 4 Obsoletes: 3967 (if approved) 5 Intended status: BCP 6 Expires: January 21, 2016 8 Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to 9 Documents at a Lower Level 10 draft-kucherawy-rfc3967bis-00 12 Abstract 14 IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not 15 have a normative reference to another standards track document at a 16 lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other 17 than specifications from other standards bodies). For example, a 18 standards track document may not have a normative reference to an 19 informational RFC. Exceptions to this rule are sometimes needed as 20 the IETF uses informational RFCs to describe non-IETF standards or 21 IETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This document 22 clarifies and updates the procedure used in these circumstances. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. The Need for Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3. The Procedure to Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 Appendix B. Changes Since RFC3967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 Appendix C. Changes History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 C.1. RFC3967 to -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 1. Introduction 73 The Internet Standards Process [RFC2026] Section 4.2.4 specifies the 74 following: 76 Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other 77 standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level 78 or on non standards track specifications other than referenced 79 specifications from other standards bodies. 81 One intent is to avoid creating a perception that a standard is more 82 mature than it actually is. 84 It should also be noted that Best Current Practice documents 85 [RFC1818] have generally been considered similar to Standards Track 86 documents in terms of what they can reference. For example, a 87 normative reference to an Experimental RFC has been considered an 88 improper reference per [RFC2026]. 90 1.1. Normative References 92 Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general 93 categories: "normative" and "informative". Broadly speaking, a 94 normative reference specifies a document that must be read to fully 95 understand or implement the subject matter in the new RFC, or whose 96 contents are effectively part of the new RFC, as its omission would 97 leave the new RFC incompletely specified. An informative reference 98 is not normative; rather, it provides only additional background 99 information. 101 An exact and precise definition of what is (and is not) a normative 102 reference has proven challenging in practice, as the details and 103 implications can be subtle. Moreover, whether a reference needs to 104 be normative can depend on the context in which a particular RFC is 105 being published in the first place. For example, in the context of 106 an IETF Standard, it is important that all dependent pieces be 107 clearly specified and available in an archival form so that there is 108 no disagreement over what constitutes a standard. This is not always 109 the case for other documents. 111 The rest of this section provides guidance on what might (and might 112 not) be considered normative in the context of the IETF standards 113 process. 115 In the IETF, it is a basic assumption that implementors must have a 116 clear understanding of what they need to implement in order to be 117 fully compliant with a standard and to be able to interoperate with 118 other implementations of that standard. For documents that are 119 referenced, any document that includes key information an implementer 120 needs would be normative. For example, if one needs to understand a 121 packet format defined in another document in order to fully implement 122 a specification, the reference to that format would be normative. 123 Likewise, if a reference to a required algorithm is made, the 124 reference would be normative. 126 Some specific examples: 128 o If a protocol relies on IPsec to provide security, one cannot 129 fully implement the protocol unless the specification for IPsec is 130 available; hence, the reference would be normative. The 131 referenced specification would likely include details about 132 specific key management requirements, which transforms are 133 required and which are optional, etc. 135 o In MIB documents, an IMPORTS clause by definition is a normative 136 reference. When a reference to an example is made, such a 137 reference need not be normative. For example, text such as "an 138 algorithm such as the one specified in [RFCxxxx] would be 139 acceptable" indicates an informative reference, since that cited 140 algorithm is just one of several possible algorithms that could be 141 used. 143 2. The Need for Downward References 145 There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may 146 need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity 147 level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of 148 [RFC2026]. For example: 150 o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or 151 algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or 152 profiled by an IETF informational RFC, for example, MD5 [RFC1321] 153 and HMAC [RFC2104]. Note that this does not override the IETF's 154 duty to see that the specification is indeed sufficiently clear to 155 enable creation of interoperable implementations. 157 o A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol, 158 and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using 159 informational RFCs. 161 o A migration or co-existence document may need to define a 162 standards track mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence 163 with, an historic protocol, a proprietary protocol, or possibly a 164 non-standards track protocol. 166 o There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons that force the 167 target of the normative reference to be an informational or 168 historical RFC or to be at a lower standards level than the 169 referring document. 171 o A BCP document may want to describe best current practices for 172 experimental or informational specifications. 174 3. The Procedure to Be Used 176 For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative reference to 177 documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call procedure will 178 be issued, with the need for the downward reference explicitly 179 documented in the Last Call itself. Any community comments on the 180 appropriateness of downward references will be considered by the IESG 181 as part of its deliberations. 183 Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been 184 accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last 185 Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last 186 Call of down references to it. This should only occur when the same 187 document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes 188 that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's 189 understanding of the relevant technical area. For example, the use 190 of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known among 191 cryptographers. 193 This procedure should not be used if the proper step is to move the 194 document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate 195 category. It is not intended as an easy way out of normal process. 196 Rather, the procedure is intended for dealing with specific cases 197 where putting particular documents into the required category is 198 problematic and unlikely ever to happen. 200 4. Security Considerations 202 This document is not known to create any new vulnerabilities for the 203 Internet. On the other hand, inappropriate or excessive use of the 204 process might be considered a downgrade attack on the quality of IETF 205 standards or, worse, on the rigorous review of security aspects of 206 standards. 208 5. References 210 5.1. Normative References 212 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 213 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 214 . 216 5.2. Informative References 218 [RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, 219 DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992, 220 . 222 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current 223 Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995, 224 . 226 [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- 227 Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, 228 DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, 229 . 231 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 233 The author wishes to thank the following for reviews and comments on 234 this draft: Barry Leiba, (others) 236 Appendix B. Changes Since RFC3967 238 o None (yet). 240 Appendix C. Changes History 242 C.1. RFC3967 to -00 244 o Convert to xml2rfc. 246 o Reset Acknowledgments. 248 Author's Address 250 Murray S. Kucherawy (editor) 251 270 Upland Drive 252 San Francisco, CA 94127 253 United States 255 EMail: superuser@gmail.com