One document matched: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-01.txt
Differences from draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-00.txt
Network Working Group B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft IBM
Expires: October 13, 2006 April 11, 2006
A Personal critique of RFC 2026
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document is a personal critique of RFC 2026, the current
description of the IETF standards process, based on the author's
experience in various IETF roles.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
Table of Contents
1. Disclaimer and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Detailed Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section] . . . . . 27
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
1. Disclaimer and Introduction
BCP 9 [RFC2026] has been the basis for the IETF standards process for
many years. This is a personal critique, but written with the
perspective of an RFC author, former WG chair, and current IESG and
IAB member. Of course, the focus is on the negative - but it should
be remembered that RFC 2026 has served the IETF well for
approximately ten years and the majority of it works well and needs
no change.
Extracts from RFC 2026 are presented verbatim in quotation marks,
preceded and followed by the following markers:
"---------Begin Extract---------
-----------End Extract---------"
Original pagination and administrative material have been removed, as
has text where the author has no particular comments to make.
This document attempts to minimise "solutionism", i.e. it is focussed
on identifying practical problems. However, in many cases the way a
problem is described may well be suggestive of a solution.
2. Detailed Critique
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
The last sentence will become obsolete (see comment on Section 10).
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
"Host-to-host" is strictly accurate, but today we tend to emphasise
the need for "end-to-end" communication. However, these are subtle
questions and perhaps the architectural summary is out of place in a
process document.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
In view of our experience with the temporary Sub-IP Area, and current
experience with L2VPN, L3VPN, PWE3 and of course MPLS, it seems
likely that this paragraph needs some rewriting. Emulation of
transmission mechanisms over IP, the IETF's involvement in
multiprotocol switching through MPLS, and the general layer confusion
induced by VPNs means that things are not as easily delimited as the
above paragaph suggests.
"---------Begin Extract---------
1.2 The Internet Standards Process
...o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification
must be implemented and tested for correct operation and
interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in
increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as
an Internet Standard.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
-----------End Extract---------"
This is an important statement of principle. In fact, if some of the
more radical proposals for simplifying the standards track were
adopted, it is unclear whether this principle could honestly be left
in place. (The antithesis is of course a priori standardization, in
which a specification is declared a standard without demonstrated
interoperability.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to
the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the
standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to
be vital in achieving the goals listed above.
The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior
implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested
parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the
other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology
demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards
Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
or openness and fairness.
-----------End Extract---------"
One of the main criticisms of recent years has been that this goal
has not been met. However,it is unclear that this is is truly a
matter of process failure rather than procedural failure. We should
look for the solution in the right place.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
Probably we can drop the reference to gopher.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
and the administrative management of the IASA [RFC4071].
"---------Begin Extract---------
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt is applied today. It
would probably be better to externalize this reference since it
remains in flux.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available
in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material
(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII
version, and it may be formatted differently.
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems we have forgotten this in practice. There is a desire in
the community to publish figures and mathematical notation in non-
ASCII format.
"---------Begin Extract---------
*********************************************************
* *
* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *
* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *
* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *
* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *
* *
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
*********************************************************
-----------End Extract---------"
There are certainly people in the IETF who want to change this, to
allow normative reference to figures and mathematics that are not
expressed in ASCII. We have to grasp this nettle and consider
whether this is to be allowed and in that case what format
(presumably some flavour of PDF) is allowed.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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).
-----------End Extract---------"
This was written before a hyperlinked index was available on line.
It is unclear what value this RFC would have today, even if kept up
to date (at this writing, it has not been updated for 20 months).
"---------Begin Extract---------
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)
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems that the fact the full Standards receive the STD
designation, and that PS and DS documents do not, is a major source
of confusion to users of the standards. Users do not, in fact, know
where to look for the latest standard.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form
the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
in the RFC series. (see section 5)
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
-----------End Extract---------"
Factually, the RFC Editor does not have such discretion for IETF
documents - it's the IESG approval that defines the status of an IETF
RFC. IETF Experimental or Informational RFCs are distinct from
direct submissions to the RFC Editor, which are now processed under
[RFC3932].
"---------Begin Extract---------
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
-----------End Extract---------"
This is inaccurate. Expiry is inhibited when a draft enters IESG
consideration, not when it is approved.
"---------Begin Extract---------
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
-----------End Extract---------"
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
The community should not duck the question of the status of expired
drafts. While some aspects of that may belong to the ipr WG, there
are some points to discuss:
a) expired drafts are retained in the IETF archive for legal reasons
b) we need to consider whether we want to contribute the I-D archive
to national patent offices and/or WIPO as part of their prior art
databases
c) we need to consider whether we wish the expired drafts to be
officially visible on the IETF site, given that we know they are
unofficially visible in many places
d) we need to note that authors may require expired drafts to be
removed from visibility (in some countries, this is a legal right)
"---------Begin Extract---------
At any time, an
Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same
specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.
An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
subject to change or removal at any time.
-----------End Extract---------"
Note that this precludes using Internet-Drafts as any form of Stable
Snapshot. If we want Stable Snapshots, this text and the following
box will require modification.
"---------Begin Extract---------
3.1 Technical Specification (TS)
A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
procedure, convention, or format.
-----------End Extract---------"
It seems clear that this does not limit a TS to defining a wire
protocol - it doesn't exclude APIs, for example (an API is clearly a
convention). It includes data definitions such as MIBs (a MIB is
clearly a format). It doesn't exclude a standard that only defines
an IANA registry (a registry is also a format). Yet all of these
things have led to debate in the IETF - even in 2006 we haveve seen
debate about whether a document that only defines a registry can
become a Proposed Standard. These points should be made more
explicit. A possible criterion is that, regardless of whether it is
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
a protocol specification, a TS must be both implementable and
testable - but even this is subject to interpretation. Also see
later comments on interoperability testing.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
The last sentence is unclear. Is it saying that a TS doesn't contain
operational guidelines? There are two issues there.
(1) If that's what it means, it should be said more clearly.
(2) Quite often, the Operations Area comments on a draft TS are, in
effecr, asking for operational guidelines. If a TS refers to a
foobar timeout, Operations people will insist on specifying a default
value and guidance about when to change the default. But the above
sentence would suggest that this belongs in a separate AS. This
needs to be clarified.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
-----------End Extract---------"
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 has been discussed by the newtrk WG. In
other words, 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.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
-----------End Extract---------"
The IETF community has shown reluctance to enter the business of
writing conformance specs, so this choice of words is probably
inappropriate.
"---------Begin Extract---------
commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
-----------End Extract---------"
Today, we use the word "requirements" much more broadly, often as a
front-end document when a WG is starting out.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
This paragraph should be moved to a general section on normative
reference requirements; there is nothing specific to ASes in this
rule. See comment below on 4.2.4.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
3.3 Requirement Levels
-----------End Extract---------"
This section assumes a sophistication in ASes that is very rare. It
would be better to make this a general section on requirement levels,
not specific to AS. This would provide the basis on which the
normative keywords [RFC2119] build.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
(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.
-----------End Extract---------"
Might want to update the example...
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate
for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because
of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic
status.
Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
TSs.
-----------End Extract---------"
Exactly. It would be much clearer to the reader if this was said at
the beginning of this section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
...
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
STD1 seems to be the wrong way to do this today. Slightly more
general language, e.g. "The RFC archive lists..." seems appropriate,
leaving it as an operational matter how it's actually done.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK
-----------End Extract---------"
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.
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
...
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
-----------End Extract---------"
This should refer to [RFC1264] and to
draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
...
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
It is well known that to a large extent this warning has been
ignored, and that the Internet "runs on Proposed Standards." It
would seem realistic to modify this language to better reflect
reality, without removing the warning. Also, as the MIB doctors have
observed, some types of spec may benefit from being recycled at this
level rather than being "promoted." It would better match reality to
state things differently, indicating that
1. PS is the preliminary level. (Renaming it Preliminary Standard
might set expectations appropriately.)
2. Implementors should be aware that a PS may be revised or even
withdrawn.
3. It is nevertheless common to use PS implementations
operationally.
4. Certain types of specification are likely to be recycled at PS as
they evolve rather than being promoted. (Sometimes this is simply a
result of complexity, but other times it's due to intrinsic
difficulties in interoperability testing and normative dependencies.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
4.1.2 Draft Standard
-----------End Extract---------"
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." So here too, a name change might help. In a two stage
standards track, the solution the author prefers personally, this
stage could be called "interoperable standard". (One may ask how
this relates to the early interoperability requirement allowed by
section 4.1.1; one answer could be that such cases would be better
viewed as a simple bypass of the PS stage.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
At least four significant questions arise repeatedly in interpreting
this.
1. What is a "feature"? This can be interpreted in many ways. At
least some boundary conditions should be set - for example, for a TLV
field is every separate type code a feature? Is every normative
keyword [RFC2119] a feature?
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 [RFC2438] and some generalisation of this seems
to be needed.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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)
-----------End Extract---------"
It's a fact of experience that we need to specify the minimum
acceptable contents of an interoperability report in considerably
more detail than this. Examining the database of reports collected
over the years, the quality is highly variable and some are very
sparse and uninformative.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
There is normally an acronym associated with an STD designation. One
procedural change that would reduce user confusion would be for the
IESG to assign a new or existing acronym as part of the initial
standards action (thus RFC 2821 would have been assigned to SMTP by
the IESG) instead of leaving this to the RFC Editor. It's also a
matter for debate with the STD number should be assigned at PS stage
for simpler tracking - thus RFC 2821 could also be known as PS10, or
some such designation.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
4.2.1 Experimental
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
-----------End Extract---------"
The IESG has been concerned about the scope of "experiments" on the
Internet and the lack of clear guidelines as to which experiments we
should document in the IETF and to what extent we should be concerned
about operational consequences. In fact, the IESG asked the
community for discussion on this point. It's also worth looking at
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/draft-iesg-info-exp-01.html before
rewriting this paragraph.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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).
-----------End Extract---------"
In practice, some Informationals and Experimentals that are published
via IESG Approval are very close to being a TS and are evaluated
almost as carefully as a TS. Others are more general.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
-----------End Extract---------"
We need to be much more precise here. First of all it presumably
means "outside of the IETF process" not "outside of the Internet
community." Secondly as part of this year's RFC Editor RFP process,
we have to get clarity about the independent submissions track.
Since it's outside the standards process, it probably doesn't belong
in this document. Probably we should say less, not more. However,
some comments have been inserted in the following section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
That's not what happens. Many of them come via an AD through the
IESG because they are (for example) related to a recently closed WG
etc. That case needs to be described here; as just noted, the
independent submissions track is separate from the IETF process.
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published.
-----------End Extract---------"
That is inaccurate, i.e. they ask the authors to do so, except
possibly shortly prior to April 1st each year.
"---------Begin Extract---------
In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
easily recognizable.
-----------End Extract---------"
Not true.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
This doesn't take account of the RFC Editor's editorial board.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
This doesn't take account of [RFC3932].
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
Should have been said up front of this section.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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.)
-----------End Extract---------"
The first paragraph has not been implemented consistently. In many
cases a standards track RFC that has been obsoleted by a more recent
version is not listed in the RFC Index as Historic.
The second paragraph seems out of place here. It belongs in the same
place as the last paragraph of section 3.2, i.e. a new section.
Furthermore, the distinction that is now required between Normative
and Informative references should be described precisely, and it
should be made plain that the requirement for Normative references to
be published (i.e. not work in progress) applies to all
specifications, not just the standards track.
However, this whole question and the variance procedure of [RFC3967]
is a cause of publication delays. We could simplify matters with a
new policy that simply says:
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.
(Since we refer to RFCs, which are never changed after publication,
this change of rule remains robust against features being removed or
changed after the citing document is published.)
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
to perform some operations or IETF process function.
Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
service requires that the operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
for consensus building.
-----------End Extract---------"
We should say something about the fact that it is sometimes unclear
whether a given document should be standards track, BCP or
informational and a few lines about the criteria (and that in the
end, it may not really matter).
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
This paragraph is rather strange. Although it's not unknown for a
BCP to have its origin in the IETF or IAB, does it really deserve a
paragraph and why is the language so tentative?
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
In practice, individual submissions are recommended to and shepherded
by an AD, who brings them to the IESG just like a WG document.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
"At that point" should be clarified to be the point of publication of
the RFC.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
Why is this necessary? A maintained and backed-up on line source
seems sufficient.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
"---------Begin Extract---------
The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
protocol and service specifications.
-----------End Extract---------"
As suggested above, this seems less appropriate than simply
maintaining the appropriate hypertext indexes.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
Should mention the RFC Errata mechanism here.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
-----------End Extract---------"
This is notoriously bogus as no IESG has ever had the cycles to do
it. It would be much better to replace it with a statement that the
IESG may be asked to advance any standard that has been long enough
in grade (or to deprecate any standard or BCP) by the relevant WG if
it exists, or by an individual participant if not. And the issue of
terminating moribund WGs should be left to RFC 2418(bis).
An open question here is whether we should encourage the present
habit of closing a WG as soon as all its drafts are approved for PS
or whether we should explicitly keep them alive at least until the 6
month timer for PS->DS has popped.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals
-----------End Extract---------"
This subsection is misplaced. It's possible to read this as applying
only to IESG actions described in this section 6. The IESG has
preferred to read it as applying to any IESG decision whatever. A
better 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.
"---------Begin Extract---------
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
...
If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
manner of its own choosing.
-----------End Extract---------"
It would be very helpful to give some indication of how much due
diligence is expected of the IESG. Today there is a tendency in the
IESG to believe that even if an appeal is of doubtful merit, we need
to plunge in great detail into the documents and mail archives
concerned, and reaching a conclusion can take an inordinate amount of
time and stress. Some IESG members would prefer a much more summary
approach to appeals. Does the community want the IESG to spend a
substantial amount of time on each appeal? (Same comments apply to
section 6.5.2.)
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
"---------Begin Extract---------
If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the
decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and
attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
-----------End Extract---------"
No doubt the IAB has similar questions.
"---------Begin Extract---------
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
-----------End Extract---------"
"IETF version"?
"---------Begin Extract---------
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. Also, the Working Group chair is
responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and
accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that
have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts
directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole
purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
circumstances.
-----------End Extract---------"
See comments on section 2.2.
"---------Begin Extract---------
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
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.
-----------End Extract---------"
This is clumsy. Why should the variance not be built into the
document that will benefit from it, for example in a section named
"Process Variance." Having it separate is makework. Publishing it
as a separate BCP is pointless expense.
"---------Begin Extract---------
...
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some
-----------End Extract---------"
The word is 'waiving'.
"---------Begin Extract---------
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
-----------End Extract---------"
This section is superseded by [RFC3978] and [RFC3979].
3. Security Considerations
This document has no security implications for the Internet.
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires no action by the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements
Useful comments on this document were made by Eric Gray and Pekka
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
Savola.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool[RFC2629].
6. Change log [RFC Editor: please remove this section]
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-01: reduced personal statement,
included feedback comments, 2006-04-11
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-00: original version, 2006-02-24
7. Informative References
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
October 1991.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2438] O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner,
"Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards
Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438, October 1998.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, April 2005.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
Author's Address
Brian Carpenter
IBM
8 Chemin de Blandonnet
1214 Vernier,
Switzerland
Email: brc@zurich.ibm.com
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Personal critique of RFC 2026 April 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Carpenter Expires October 13, 2006 [Page 29]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 08:24:32 |