One document matched: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-01.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">

<!-- This is built from a template for a generic Internet Draft. Suggestions for
     improvement welcome - write to Brian Carpenter, brc @ zurich.ibm.com -->

<?rfc toc="yes"?>            <!-- You want a table of contents -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>        <!-- Use symbolic labels for references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>       <!-- This sorts the references -->
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>    <!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>


<!-- You need one entry like the following for each RFC referenced -->

<!ENTITY RFC2026 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2026'>
<!ENTITY RFC2119 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119'>
<!ENTITY RFC2438 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2438'>
<!ENTITY RFC2629 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629'>
<!ENTITY RFC3365 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3365'>
<!ENTITY RFC3932 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3932'>
<!ENTITY RFC3967 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3967'>
<!ENTITY RFC3978 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3978'>
<!ENTITY RFC3979 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3979'>
<!ENTITY RFC4071 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4071'>
<!ENTITY RFC4897 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4897'>

<!ENTITY DRAFT-rfcinstr SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis.xml">

<!ENTITY DRAFT-rfcindep SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.iab-rfc-independent.xml">

<!ENTITY DRAFT-rfciab SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.iab-rfc-editor.xml">


<!-- This defines the specific filename and version number of your draft (and inserts the appropriate IETF boilerplate -->
<rfc ipr="full3978" docName="draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00" category="info"> 


<!-- From here on code by example -->

<front>
  <title abbrev="RFC 2026 Changes">Proposed Changes to RFC 2026</title>

  <author initials="B. E." surname="Carpenter" fullname="Brian Carpenter">
    <organization abbrev="IBM">IBM</organization>
    <address>
      <postal>
        <street>8 Chemin de Blandonnet</street>
        <country>Switzerland</country>
        <code></code>
        <region></region>
        <city>1214 Vernier</city>
      </postal>
      
      <email>brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</email>
    </address>
  </author>

   
  
   <date month="June" year="2007" />

  <area>General</area>
  <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>

  <abstract>
    <t>This document proposes a number of changes to RFC 2026, the basic definition 
      of the IETF standards process. While some of them are definite changes to the rules, 
      the intention is to preserve the main intent of the original rules, while adapting 
      them to experience and current practice.
    </t>
  </abstract>
</front>

<middle>
  <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
    <t>BCP 9 <xref target="RFC2026"/> has been the basis for the IETF 
    standards process for many years. 
    RFC 2026 has been in force since 1996, and has proved robust 
    and adequately flexible for the main
    part.  However, some provisions have led to practical difficulties 
    or lack clarity. The changes proposed
    here are intended to tackle those issues.</t>

    <t>NOTE IN DRAFT: This version is a basis for discussion and debate, 
    on the ietf@ietf.org list unless
    a specialized list is created.</t>

    <t>This document is organized as follows. Firstly, 
       there is an overview of the suggested changes. Then, the
       proposed substantive changes are listed 
       and explained in textual sequence, illustrated with extracts from RFC 2026. 
       Even single-word changes are listed if they are considered substantive.
       Then, the mandatory sections of any RFC are included. Finally, an
       Appendix lists purely editorial
       issues that will need to be handled in a new version of RFC 2026.</t>

</section>

<section anchor="overview" title="Overview of Suggested Changes">

<t>Where a suggestion needs some explanatory rationale, this is
included among the detailed changes.</t>

<list style="symbols">
<t>Rationalize the way in which standards are referenced and numbered, by:</t>
<list style="numbers">
 <t>Assigning acronyms and numbers to standards at each stage of the standards track,
    not just at the final stage;</t>
 <t>Clarifying in all indexes that more recent standards obsolete older ones
    regardless of their respective stages on the standards track;</t>
 <t>Formally abolishing the now pointless "STD 1" RFCs.</t>
 </list>

<t>Tidy up terminology and explanatory text in the standards track definition.</t>
<list><t>NOTE IN DRAFT: The proposals are based on the three stage standards track, 
and assume a goal of adjusting the rules to make it fully workable. If the IETF 
chose to reduce to a two stage or one stage standards track, the proposals would 
be modified.</t></list>

<t>Place responsibility for initiating the advancement or deprecation of stalled
documents back in the community rather than expecting the IESG to do it.</t>

<t>Formalize the reality that non-Working Group documents of any
kind may be processed by the IETF and approved by the IESG.</t>

<t>Clarify and simplify the description of Applicability Statements.</t>

<t>Collate in one place the principles about normative references.</t>

<t>Give the IESG explicit authority to define the granularity of
interoperability testing.</t>

<t>Simplify the variance process. </t>

<t>Clarify that the appeals process applies to all decisions.</t>
</list>

<t>Additionally, there are several proposals for smaller changes
that are intended only for clarification and alignment with
reality.</t>

</section>

<section anchor="text" title="Detailed Proposals for Change">

<t>Extracts from RFC 2026 are presented verbatim in quotation marks, preceded and followed by these markers:
<vspace/>"---------Begin Extract---------
<vspace/>-----------End Extract---------"
<vspace/>Proposed changes are presented as plain text.
</t>




<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>

   The Internet Standards Process described in this document is
   concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are
   used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the
   TCP/IP protocol suite.  In the case of protocols developed and/or
   standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet
   Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol
   or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the
   protocol itself.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>
PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the last sentence by:</t>

<t>In the case of protocols developed and/or standardized outside the IETF,
the Internet Standards Process may be applied to the use of the protocol
in the Internet context. Similarly, IETF protocols may be cited in
specifications developed elsewhere. The IETF will not normally modify
protocols developed elsewhere, and does not normally permit its protocols
to be modified elsewhere.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: The previous text did not allow for the complexity of interaction
between IETF and non-IETF protocols, nor set the proper context for
liaison relationships.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
2.1  Requests for Comments (RFCs)
...
   The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
   summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
   Protocol Standards" [1].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and
   other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
   specification (see section 3).
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this paragraph and all other references to STD1.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: This was written before a hyperlinked index 
was available on line. </t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
   subseries of the RFC series [4].  When a specification has been
   adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
   "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
   series. (see section 4.1.3)
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the last sentence by:</t>

<t>When a specification has been approved for publication on the standards track,
it is assigned a Standard Number (e.g. 10) and a Standard Acronym (e.g. SMTP),
independent of its RFC number and its place in the RFC series. </t> 

<t>RATIONALE:
The fact that only full Standards receive an STD number, and possibly an acronym, 
is today a major source of confusion to users of the standards,
since these numbers and acronyms are not associatd with PS and DS documents. 
Users do not, in fact, know where to look for the latest standard, since a
DS may obsolete an STD, and a PS may obsolete either. 
It would be much less confusing if  a new or existing acronym was assigned as 
part of the initial standards action (thus  RFC 2821 would have been associated with SMTP). 
Similarly, the STD number should be assigned at PS stage for simpler tracking - thus 
RFC 2821 would also be known as PS10, for example. (Also see comments on section 4.1.3.)</t>

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

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace this paragraph by:</t>
<t>Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
   should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. When such
   non-standards track specifications are produced within
   the IETF, they are subject to the rules of the IETF except those
   that concern only the standards track and BCPs. Non-standards track 
   IETF specifications may be published as "Experimental" or "Informational" 
   RFCs if approved by the IESG. Note that additional paths to publication
   are possible <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-editor"/>, <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-independent"/>.</t>



<t>RATIONALE: IETF Experimental or Informational RFCs are distinct from independent submissions to the RFC Editor, which are now processed under
<xref target="RFC3932"/>, and from IAB and IRTF documents. Also, we want all IETF documents to be subject to many
of our rules, such as the IPR rules and the appeals process.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
2.2  Internet-Drafts

   During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
   document are made available for informal review and comment by
   placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
   replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
   working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
   the process of review and revision.

   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace 'recommended' by 'considered'. </t>

<t>RATIONALE: Expiry is inhibited when a draft enters IESG consideration, not when it is approved.</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following two paragraphs:</t>
<t>Drafts are also removed from the directory after publication
as an RFC. However, all versions of all drafts are retained in the IETF archive for legal reasons and
may be subject to subpoena. Authors should be aware that expired drafts are unofficially available in many places.
Authors may request expired drafts to be removed from such availability, but this is outside
the control of the IETF.</t>

<t>The published RFC will not be textually
identical to the final version of the draft. Not only will the required boilerplate
text be finalized; the RFC Editor will also make editorial corrections,
and any minor technical changes following IESG review will be applied.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
3.1  Technical Specification (TS)

   A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
   procedure, convention, or format. 
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following paragraph:</t>
<t>Thus a TS is not limited to defining a wire protocol; it may for example define an Application Programming Interface (i.e. a convention) or a data definition such as a MIB or an IANA registry (i.e. a format). 
However, a TS must be both implementable and testable.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Although clearly within the intended scope of RFC 2026, these types of TS have been a source of debate
and deserve clarification. Also see later comments on implementation reports.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
...
   A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent
   for its use (domain of applicability).  Thus, a TS that is inherently
   specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that
   effect.  However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use
   within the Internet;  these requirements, which depend on the
   particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different
   system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete the 3rd sentence.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: The last sentence very unclear. Is it saying that a TS doesn't contain operational guidelines? 
Quite often, the Operations Area comments on a draft TS are, in effect, asking for operational guidelines. If a TS refers to a timeout or some other behavioural parameter, Operations people may insist on specifying a default value and guidance about when to change the default. But the above sentence could suggest that this belongs in a separate AS. In practice, few authors separate such things from the basic specification. The simplest resolution is to drop the whole sentence.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
3.2  Applicability Statement (AS)

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

   An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they
   are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges
   of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
   implemented.  An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use
   of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section
   3.3).

   An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted
   "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal
   servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-
   based database servers.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>QUESTION: Is this text useful?</t>

<t>RATIONALE: The community really doesn't have the habit of writing this sort 
of separate AS; it's rare, and very rare in WG charters. In fact, an AS of this style,
covering a set of related TS documents of various maturities, would be
very similar to the type of Internet Standards description document
that was discussed by the newtrk WG. It doesn't
really fit anywhere in today's document taxonomy - it has more significance
than an Informational document, but doesn't belong on the standards track
because it can't be implemented and tested in itself.
</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
   commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
   Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this paragraph.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Firstly, this is not the community's normal understanding of
a conformance specification, which generally refers to product certification.
Secondly, in the IETF today, we use the word "requirements" much more broadly, 
often for a front-end Informational document when a WG is starting out.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track
   than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
   For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
   at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
   the Standard level.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Move this paragraph to a new
general section on normative reference requirements, and rewrite as:</t>

<t> A standards-track document should not have a higher maturity level 
   in the standards track than any standards-track document on which it 
   relies normatively.</t> 
   
<t>RATIONALE: There is nothing specific to ASes in this rule; it is applied
globally wherever normative references occur. See comment below on 4.2.4.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
3.3  Requirement Levels
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: The text should be reorganized to give this material general scope
for all standards-track and BCP documents.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: There is nothing specific to AS vs TS vs BCP in these requirement
levels.</t>


<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
...
   The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
   requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
   section. This RFC is updated periodically.  In many cases, more
   detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
   protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found
   in appropriate ASs.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace the first two sentences by:</t>

<t>The RFC Editor web site displays current maturity and
requirement levels for each standards track and BCP document.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>NOTE IN DRAFT: The following comments are based on the three stage standards track, and assume a goal of adjusting the rules to make it fully workable. If the IETF chose to reduce to a two stage or one stage standards track, this would simplify things further.</t>
<t>EDITOR'S NOTE: This editor would prefer a two-stage standards track. If IETF discussion goes that way, he
will be delighted to make the appropriate changes.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.1.1  Proposed Standard
...
   Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
   specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
   experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
   However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
   problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
   implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
   environment is not recommended.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGES:</t>
<t>1. Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.</t>
<t>2. Add text on the following lines:</t>

<t>Preliminary Standard is indeed the preliminary level. Implementors should be aware 
that a PS may be revised or even withdrawn. However, it is nevertheless common to 
use PS implementations operationally. Many documents spend their entire active life as PS.
Certain types of specification, e.g. data formats such as MIBs, are likely to be 
recycled at PS as they evolve rather than being promoted. This may be a result of complexity,
or due to intrinsic difficulties in interoperability testing and normative dependencies.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: It is well known that to a large extent the warnings about PS have been ignored, and
that the Internet "runs on Proposed Standards." Also, as the MIB doctors have observed, some 
types of spec may benefit from being recycled at this level rather than being "promoted." 
The name change makes the status more immediately obvious.</t>
  
<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.1.2  Draft Standard
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>EDITOR'S NOTE: In the editor's preferred model of a two stage standards process, DS would be renamed as IS (Interoperable Standard) and would be the final stage.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Just as "proposed" standard is effectively interpreted as "preliminary", "draft standard" is effectively interpreted as "definitive". Also we have the problem of confusion with "Internet-Draft." A name change 
would reduce the risk of confusion.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  For the
   purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
   equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
   which they are used.  If patented or otherwise controlled technology
   is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
   also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
   Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
   a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.

   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following paragraph:</t>

<t>The IESG is empowered to define the level of granularity required
in interpreting this requirement, and how to show interoperability
for specifications that do not define wire protocols or 
have a single-ended nature.</t>


<t>RATIONALE: At least four significant questions arise repeatedly in interpreting the rules.
Rather than trying to over-define the rules, it seems best to leave this to the IESG.</t>

<list style="numbers">
<t>What is a "feature"? This can be interpreted in many ways. For a TLV field
is every separate type code a feature? Is every normative keyword <xref target="RFC2119"/> a feature?</t>

<t>Is it acceptable if features A and B are shown to be interoperable between implementations X and Y, and features C and D are shown to be interoperable between implentations P and Q? In that case we have shown interoperability of features A, B, C and D but have not shown that any implementation successfully interoperates with all of them.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
At least for the strong security requirement of BCP 61 <xref target="RFC3365"/>,
the Security Area, with
the support of the IESG, has insisted that all specifications include at least one
mandatory-to-implement strong security mechanism to guarantee universal interoperability.</t>

<t>Is it acceptable if both implementations X and Y show interoperability with implementation Q, but the implementor of Q is not party to the tests and does not make any statements about features supported? In other words Q has merely served as an active mirror in the tests.</t>

<t>How should we handle the issue of "single-ended" technical
specifications such as data formats, where there is no new protocol
whose interoperation we can verify? A practical solution for MIBs
has been documented <xref target="RFC2438"/> and some generalisation 
of this seems to be needed. </t>
</list>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

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

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add this sentence:</t>
<t>The IESG is empowered to define the level of detail required in
such implementation reports.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Examining the database of reports collected over the years at
<eref target="http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html"/>, 
the quality is highly variable and some are very sparse and uninformative. Again,
it seems rational for the IESG to define what's acceptable.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.1.3  Internet Standard
...
   A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
   number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: This should be done as soon as a document enters the standards
track, and an acronym should be assigned too. Text is proposed above as a comment
on section 2.1, but should probably be placed at the head of section 4.1.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: see above re section 2.1.</t>


<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.2.2  Informational

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
   (see section 4.2.3).
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add:</t>

<t>In practice, some Informational and Experimental RFCs that are published following
IESG Approval are very close to being a TS and are evaluated almost as carefully as a TS. 
Others are more general.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
   community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:</t>

<t>As mentioned above, some RFCs are published outside the IETF process;
see <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-editor"/> and <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-independent"/>.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid inconsistency.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

   Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
   intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
   should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:</t>

<t>Documents intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
via the IETF process, that are not the result of IETF Working Group action,
must be sponsored by an Area Director, in the same way as a standards track
or BCP document that is not the result of IETF Working Group action. The
IESG is empowered to define the procedures for this.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality. 
</t>
<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   The RFC Editor will
   publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
   been so published.  In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
   they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
   easily recognizable.  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
   publication for comments before proceeding further.  The RFC Editor
   is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
   suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
   Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
   the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
   activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
   RFCs.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by yet another reference to <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-independent"/>.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Should not duplicate this material, to avoid inconsistency.</t>

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

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:</t>
<t>
   To ensure that the independent submissions track is
   not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
   Process, the IESG, the IAB and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
   will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
   Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
   may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
   IETF community.  The IESG shall review such a referred document
   within a reasonable period of time, and recommend a course
   of action to the RFC Editor 
   <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-independent"/>, <xref target="RFC3932"/>.
</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.2.4  Historic

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have suggested that the
   word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
   "Historic" is historical.)

   Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
   other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
   level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>EDITOR'S NOTE: The first paragraph has not been implemented consistently.
In most cases a standards track RFC that has been obsoleted
by a more recent version is not listed in the RFC Index
as Historic, leading to user confusion about the correct version
to use. It is suggested that the IESG takes action to correct this situation.</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: move the second paragraph to the new section proposed
in the comments on section 3.2. Also add there:</t>

<t>Standards track and BCP documents must, and other documents should,
distinguish between normative and informative references. Normative
references are those that are required reading to correctly
understand and implement a specification. Procedures exist to
allow normative references to less mature documents
<xref target="RFC3967"/>, <xref target="RFC4897"/>.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: we need to clarify and collate the rules about
normative references.</t>

<t>EDITOR's NOTE: Down-references are a cause of publication delays. We could simplify matters 
further with a new policy that simply says:
<vspace/>
Documents on the standards track, or BCPs, may refer normatively to any document on 
the standards track or to any BCP, as long as down-level references are labelled as 
such in the list of references.
<vspace/>
(Since we refer to RFCs, which are never changed
after publication, this change of rule would remain robust against features being
removed or changed after the citing document is published. However, the change here compared
to <xref target="RFC4897"/> is only that the down-ref need not be mentioned
during Last Call.) </t>




<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

   ...
   While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are
   composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the
   technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities
   themselves have an existence as leaders in the community.  As leaders
   in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
   outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
   raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
   statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
   thoughts on other matters.  The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
   structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
   the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
   community's view of that issue.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add:</t>
<t>Such BCPs are subject to the normal process of IETF review
and IESG approval.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Important clarification.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.1.1  Initiation of Action

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

   A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
   Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
   copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
   associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
   the IESG.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace second paragraph by:</t>

<t>A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
   Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
   copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
   associated with a Working Group, an agreement by an Area Director
   to recommend a specification to the IESG.  The
   IESG is empowered to define the procedures for this.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t>


<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.1.3  Publication
   ...
   An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
   appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
   shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
   actions.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Pointless since the web came along.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
   Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
   protocol and service specifications.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Delete this.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: Pointless since the web came along.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track
...
   Change of status shall result in republication of the specification
   as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
   all in the specification since the last publication.  Generally,
   desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
   in the standards track.  However, deferral of changes to the next
   standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
   desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
   technical error that does not represent a change in overall function
   of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately.  In such
   cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with
   a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
   time-at-level clock.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add this:</t>
<t>Note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.</t>
<t>RATIONALE: Important clarification.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track
...
   When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
   Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
   twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
   until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
   the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
   usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
   shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
   at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
   at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status.  This
   decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
   IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
   opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
   legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
   administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace this by:</t>
<t>
   In normal practice, the IESG may be requested to advance any standards-track
   specification that has been long enough in grade, or to replace or deprecate
   any IETF document, by the relevant Working Group if it exists, or by any
   individual participant(s) if not.
</t>
<t>
   Additionally, when a standards-track specification has not reached the 
   highest level, but has remained at the same maturity level for at least
   the required minimum period plus one year, any member(s) of the 
   community may request the IESG to review the viability of
   the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
   usefulness of the technology. Such a request should include
   a proposed action, with a justification and suitable Internet-Drafts
   if appropriate. Following each such request, the IESG
   shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort.
   At the same time the IESG shall decide whether to maintain the specification
   at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status.  This
   decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
   IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
   opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
   legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
   administrative mechanism for reviving or terminating a moribund effort,
   and for marking obsolete specifications as such.

</t>
<t>RATIONALE: This shifts the responsibility to initiate advancement
or deprecation of specifications to the community. No IESG has ever 
had the cycles to initiate such actions, and it is much better practice
to delegate this responsibility. It also clarifies the difference
between normal advancement and the handling of moribund efforts.</t>

<t>QUESTION: Should we encourage or discourage the present habit of closing a WG as soon as all its drafts are approved for PS. Should we explicitly keep them alive at least until the 6 month timer for PS->DS has popped?</t>



<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.5  Conflict Resolution and Appeals
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Move this up to a top-level section, with
any small updates to clarify that all WG and IESG decisions may be
appealed.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: It's possible to read the current sub-section as applying 
only to IESG actions described in this section 6. The IESG and IAB have 
preferred to read it as applying to any decision whatever. </t>

<t>EDITOR's NOTE: Another approach would be to split this off as a separate document, with its scope of applicability defined precisely but broadly. Also experience suggests we should consider some mechanism to deal with over-enthusiastic use of the appeal mechanism by individuals.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
8.  NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING
...
   As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
   Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
   responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working
   Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must
   make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and
   included in the archives.  
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace by:</t>

<t>As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
   Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
   responsibility of the IETF Secretariat. Each IETF Working
   Group must maintain an email list archive, which may be
   that maintained by the Secretariat, and must
   make a best effort to ensure that all traffic except unsolicited
   commercial email is captured and included in the archives. </t>

<t>RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.</t> 


<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
9.  VARYING THE PROCESS
...
   The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the
   precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a
   variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including
   consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.
   The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft.  The IESG
   shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to
   allow for community comment upon the proposal.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>
<t>PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following text:</t>

<t>Alternatively, the proposed variance may be included in the document
concerned, in a separate section named "Process Variance". The extended
Last-Call requirement will still apply.</t>

<t>RATIONALE: The present process is clumsy. Why should the variance not be built into the document that will benefit from it? Having it separate is makework. Publishing it as a separate BCP is pointless expense.</t>




  </section>
  <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
    <t>This document has no security implications for the Internet.</t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>This document requires no action by the IANA. </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="acknowledgement" title="Acknowledgements">
    <t>This document was initially constructed on the basis of an earlier
       draft, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique. 
       Useful comments on that draft were made by Eric Gray,
       Luc Pardon, Pekka Savola, Magnus Westerlund, Jeff Hutzelman,
       Mike Heard, Alfred Hoenes and others.
    </t>

   <t>Many suggestions in the present document are far from original
      and many people deserve acknowledgement. 
      Discussions in the former NEWTRK working group and various
      drafts written in the context of that WG or following its closure,
      and in the former PESCI design team, 
      were particularly influential. 
      A bibliography of those drafts has not been provided, since they have
      all expired under Section 2.2 of <xref target="RFC2026"/>. 
   </t> 

 <t>This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool <xref target="RFC2629"/>.</t>
  </section>

<section anchor ="changes" title="Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section]">

<t>draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-00: original version, extracted and modified from draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique, 2007-06-27</t>


</section>
</middle>

<back>

<references title="Informative References">


&RFC2026;
&RFC2119;
&RFC2438;
&RFC2629;
&RFC3365;
&RFC3932;
&RFC3967;
&RFC3978;
&RFC3979;
&RFC4071;
&DRAFT-rfcinstr;
&DRAFT-rfcindep;
&RFC4897;
&DRAFT-rfciab;
    
</references>

<section title="Editorial Corrections">
<t>This Appendix lists simple editorial issues in RFC 2026 that have been noted during the 
preparation of the present document.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
Abstract

   This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
   the standardization of protocols and procedures.  It defines the
   stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
   document between stages and the types of documents used during this
   process.  It also addresses the intellectual property rights and
   copyright issues associated with the standards process.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>


<t>The last sentence is obsolete (see comment on Section 10).</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
1.1  Internet Standards

   The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
   autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host
   communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and
   procedures defined by Internet Standards.  There are also many
   isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the
   global Internet but use the Internet Standards.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t><vspace/>
<t>"Host-to-host" is strictly accurate, but today we tend to emphasise the need
for "end-to-end" communication. Also, our experience is that isolated
networks tend to get connected sooner or later. However, these are subtle questions
and it is proposed to remove the architectural summary from this process document.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
2.1  Requests for Comments (RFCs)

   Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification
   is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document
   series.  This archival series is the official publication channel for
   Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,
   and Internet community.  RFCs can be obtained from a number of
   Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other
   Internet document-retrieval systems.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Remove the reference to gopher.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>

   The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of
   the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see
   Appendix A for glossary of acronyms).  RFCs cover a wide range of
   topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
   new research concepts to status memos about the Internet.  RFC
   publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the
   general direction of the IAB.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Add citations of <xref target="I-D.iab-rfc-editor"/> and <xref target="RFC4071"/>.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
   The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Note that <xref target="I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis"/> is applied today.</t>
<t>It would probably be better to externalize this reference since it remains in flux.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
3.3  Requirement Levels
...
   (c)  Elective:  Implementation of the referenced TS is optional
      within the domain of applicability of the AS;  that is, the AS
      creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS.  However, a
      particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user
      may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment.  For
      example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an
      environment where the DECNET protocol is used.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Update the example.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
...
   Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
   standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
   TSs. 
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>It would be much clearer to the reader if this was said at the beginning of this section.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
...
   Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
   Working Groups go through IESG review.  The review is initiated using
   the process described in section 6.1.1.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Move up front in this section.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.1.3  Publication

   If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
   Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
   specification as an RFC.  The specification shall at that point be
   removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>"At that point" refers to the moment of publication of the RFC.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track
...
   Change of status shall result in republication of the specification
   as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
   all in the specification since the last publication.  Generally,
   desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
   in the standards track.  However, deferral of changes to the next
   standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
   desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
   technical error that does not represent a change in overall function
   of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately.  In such
   cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with
   a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
   time-at-level clock.
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>Add a note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
7.1  Use of External Specifications

   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
   Internet community will not standardize a specification that is
   simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>"IETF version"</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
9.  VARYING THE PROCESS
...
   This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>The word is 'waiving'.</t>

<t>"---------Begin Extract---------<vspace/><figure><artwork>
10.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
</artwork></figure>-----------End Extract---------"</t>

<t>This section is superseded by BCP 78 <xref target="RFC3978"/> and BCP 79
<xref target="RFC3979"/>. A simple reference should replace it.</t>

</section>

</back>
</rfc>