Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Housley
Request for Comments: 6410                                Vigil Security
BCP: 9                                                        D. Crocker
Updates: 2026                                Brandenburg InternetWorking
Category: Best Current Practice                                E. Burger
ISSN: 2070-1721                                    Georgetown University
                                                           October 2011


         Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels

Abstract

  This document updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
  Standards Process defined in RFC 2026.  Primarily, it reduces the
  Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two.

Status of This Memo

  This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
  (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
  received public review and has been approved for publication by the
  Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
  BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

  Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
  document authors.  All rights reserved.

  This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
  Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
  (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
  publication of this document.  Please review these documents
  carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
  to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
  include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
  the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
  described in the Simplified BSD License.






Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 6410             Standards Track Maturity Levels        October 2011


1.  Introduction

  This document changes the Internet Standards Process defined in RFC
  2026 [1].  In recent years, the Internet Engineering Task Force
  (IETF) witnessed difficulty advancing documents through the maturity
  levels: Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, and finally Standard.
  These changes are designed to simplify the Standards Process and
  reduce impediments to standards progression while preserving the most
  important benefits of the IETF engineering approach.  In addition,
  the requirement for annual review of Standards Track documents that
  have not reached the top of the maturity ladder is removed from the
  Internet Standards Process.

  Over the years, there have been many proposals for refining the
  Internet Standards Process to reduce impediments to standards
  progression.  During May 2010, the Internet Engineering Steering
  Group (IESG) discussed many of these proposals.  Then, a plenary
  discussion at IETF 78 in July 2010 demonstrated significant support
  for transition from a three-tier maturity ladder to one with two
  tiers.

  In the Internet Standards Process, experience with a Proposed
  Standard is expected to motivate revisions that clarify, modify,
  enhance, or remove features.  However, in recent years, the vast
  majority of Standards Track documents are published as Proposed
  Standards and never advance to a higher maturity level.  Very few
  specifications have advanced on the maturity ladder in the last
  decade.  Changing the Internet Standards Process from three maturity
  levels to two is intended to create an environment where lessons from
  implementation and deployment experience are used to improve
  specifications.

  The primary aspect of this change is to revise the requirements for
  advancement beyond Proposed Standard.  RFC 2026 [1] requires a report
  that documents interoperability between at least two implementations
  from different code bases as an interim step ("Draft Standard")
  before a specification can be advanced further to the third and final
  maturity level ("Standard") based on widespread deployment and use.
  In contrast, this document requires measuring interoperability
  through widespread deployment of multiple implementations from
  different code bases, thus condensing the two separate metrics into
  one.

  The result of this change is expected to be maturity-level
  advancement based on achieving widespread deployment of quality
  specifications.  Additionally, the change will result in the
  incorporation of lessons from implementation and deployment




Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 6410             Standards Track Maturity Levels        October 2011


  experience, and recognition that protocols are improved by removing
  complexity associated with unused features.

  In RFC 2026 [1], widespread deployment is essentially the metric used
  for advancement from Draft Standard to Standard.  The use of this
  same metric for advancement beyond Proposed Standard means that there
  is no longer a useful distinction between the top two tiers of the
  maturity ladder.  Thus, the maturity ladder is reduced to two tiers.

  In addition, RFC 2026 [1] requires annual review of specifications
  that have not achieved the top maturity level.  This review is no
  longer required.

2.  Two Maturity Levels

  This document replaces the three-tier maturity ladder defined in RFC
  2026 [1] with a two-tier maturity ladder.  Specifications become
  Internet Standards through a set of two maturity levels known as the
  "Standards Track".  These maturity levels are "Proposed Standard" and
  "Internet Standard".

  A specification may be, and indeed, is likely to be, revised as it
  advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.  When a revised
  specification is proposed for advancement to Internet Standard, the
  IESG shall determine the scope and significance of the changes to the
  specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
  recommended action.  Minor revisions and the removal of unused
  features are expected, but a significant revision may require that
  the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard
  before progressing.

2.1.  The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard

  The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
  remain exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1].  No new requirements are
  introduced; no existing published requirements are relaxed.

2.2.  The Second Maturity Level: Internet Standard

  This maturity level is a merger of Draft Standard and Standard as
  specified in RFC 2026 [1].  The chosen name avoids confusion between
  "Draft Standard" and "Internet-Draft".









Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 6410             Standards Track Maturity Levels        October 2011


  The characterization of an Internet Standard remains as described in
  RFC 2026 [1], which says:

     An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of
     technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
     specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
     Internet community.

  The IESG, in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, confirms
  that a document advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
  The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an
  explanation of how the criteria have been met.  The criteria are:

  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
      increase implementation complexity.

  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

  After review and consideration of significant errata, the IESG will
  perform an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks on the
  requested reclassification.  If there is consensus for
  reclassification, the RFC will be reclassified without publication of
  a new RFC.

  As stated in RFC 2026 [1], in a timely fashion after the expiration
  of the Last Call period, the IESG shall make its final determination
  and notify the IETF of its decision via electronic mail to the IETF
  Announce mailing list.  No changes are made to Section 6.1.2 of RFC
  2026 [1].

2.3.  Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels

  Any protocol or service that is currently at the Proposed Standard
  maturity level remains so.

  Any protocol or service that is currently at the Standard maturity
  level shall be immediately reclassified as an Internet Standard.





Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 6410             Standards Track Maturity Levels        October 2011


  Any protocol or service that is currently at the abandoned Draft
  Standard maturity level will retain that classification, absent
  explicit actions.  Two possible actions are available:

  (1) A Draft Standard may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as
      soon as the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied.

  (2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
      a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
      document as Proposed Standard.

3.  Removed Requirements

3.1.  Removal of Requirement for Annual Review

  In practice, the annual review of Proposed Standard and Draft
  Standard documents after two years (called for in RFC 2026 [1]) has
  not taken place.  Lack of this review has not revealed any ill
  effects on the Internet Standards Process.  As a result, the
  requirement for this review is dropped.  No review cycle is imposed
  on Standards Track documents at any maturity level.

3.2.  Requirement for Interoperability Testing Reporting

  Testing for interoperability is a long tradition in the development
  of Internet protocols and remains important for reliable deployment
  of services.  The IETF Standards Process no longer requires a formal
  interoperability report, recognizing that deployment and use is
  sufficient to show interoperability.

  Although no longer required by the IETF Standards Processes, RFC 5657
  [2] can be helpful to conduct interoperability testing.

4.  Security Considerations

  This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.

5.  Acknowledgements

  A two-tier Standards Track has been proposed many times.  Spencer
  Dawkins, Charlie Perkins, and Dave Crocker made a proposal in 2003.
  Additional proposals were made by Scott Bradner in 2004, Brian
  Carpenter in June 2005, and Ran Atkinson in 2006.  This document
  takes ideas from many of these prior proposals; it also incorporates
  ideas from the IESG discussion in May 2010, the IETF 78 plenary
  discussion in July 2010, and yet another proposal submitted by
  Spencer Dawkins, Dave Crocker, Eric Burger, and Peter Saint-Andre in
  November 2010.



Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

RFC 6410             Standards Track Maturity Levels        October 2011


6.  References

6.1. Normative References

  [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
       9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

6.2. Informative References

  [2]  Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation and
       Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard", BCP
       9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

Author's Address

  Russell Housley
  Vigil Security, LLC
  EMail: [email protected]

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  EMail: [email protected]

  Eric W. Burger
  Georgetown University
  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://www.standardstrack.com
























Housley, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.