Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        O. Kolkman
Request for Comments: 7127                                    NLnet Labs
BCP: 9                                                        S. Bradner
Updates: 2026                                         Harvard University
Category: Best Current Practice                                S. Turner
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               IECA, Inc.
                                                           January 2014


                Characterization of Proposed Standards

Abstract

  RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering
  Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and
  characterizes the maturity level of those documents.  This document
  updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate
  characterization of Proposed Standards.

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 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/rfc7127.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2014 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.





Kolkman, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 7127         Characterization of Proposed Standards     January 2014


Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  2.  IETF Review of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  3.  Characterization of Specifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
    3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications   3
    3.2.  Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . .   4
  4.  Further Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
  5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
  6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
  Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

  In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026], the IETF
  has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs, and thus
  Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 no longer accurately describes IETF
  Proposed Standards.

  This document only updates the characterization of Proposed Standards
  from Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 and does not speak to or alter the
  procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from RFC
  2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410].  For complete understanding of the
  requirements for standardization, those documents should be read in
  conjunction with this document.

2.  IETF Review of Proposed Standards

  The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
  Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
  specification onto the Standards Track at the "Proposed Standard"
  level.

  Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications
  would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
  Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard, then finally
  to Internet Standard (see Section 6 of RFC 2026).  For a number of
  reasons this progression is not common.  Many Proposed Standards are
  actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable
  protocols.  This proves the point that the community often deems it
  unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard.  Actual
  practice has been that full progression through the sequence of
  standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF
  protocols remain at Proposed Standard.  Over time, the IETF has
  developed a more extensive review process.






Kolkman, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 7127         Characterization of Proposed Standards     January 2014


  IETF Proposed Standards documents have been subject to open
  development and review by the Internet technical community, generally
  including a number of formal cross-discipline reviews and,
  specifically, a security review.  This is further strengthened in
  many cases by implementations and even the presence of interoperable
  code.  Hence, IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
  are ready for the usual market-based product development and
  deployment efforts into the Internet.

3.  Characterization of Specifications

  The text in the following section replaces Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026.
  Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet
  Standards from Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2026 and is provided for
  convenient reference.  The text only provides the characterization;
  process issues for Draft and Internet Standards are described in RFC
  2026 and its updates, specifically RFC 6410.

3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications

  The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
  Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
  specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
  level.

  A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
  design choices, has received significant community review, and
  appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

  Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
  required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
  Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
  usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
  designation.

  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.

  A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
  respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
  of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
  However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
  be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
  when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
  at scale is gathered.



Kolkman, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 7127         Characterization of Proposed Standards     January 2014


3.2.  Characteristics of Internet Standards

  A specification for which significant implementation and successful
  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
  referred to as a 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.

4.  Further Considerations

  Occasionally, the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
  document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges.  In
  such cases, any known issues with the document will be clearly and
  prominently communicated in the document, for example, in the
  abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.

5.  Security Considerations

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

6.  Normative References

  [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
             3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

  [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
             Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
             October 2011.





















Kolkman, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 7127         Characterization of Proposed Standards     January 2014


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

  This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone
  session during the technical plenary at IETF 87.  Thanks to, in
  alphabetical order, Jari Arkko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Randy
  Bush, Benoit Claise, Dave Cridland, Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel,
  Stephen Farrell, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Pete Resnick for
  motivation, input, and review.

  John Klensin and Dave Crocker have provided significant
  contributions.

Authors' Addresses

  Olaf Kolkman
  Stichting NLnet Labs
  Science Park 400
  Amsterdam  1098 XH
  The Netherlands

  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/


  Scott O. Bradner
  Harvard University Information Technology
  Innovation and Architecture
  8 Story St., Room 5014
  Cambridge, MA  02138
  United States of America

  Phone: +1 617 495 3864
  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://www.harvard.edu/huit


  Sean Turner
  IECA, Inc.

  EMail: [email protected]











Kolkman, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]