Network Working Group                                          B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4794                          AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264                                            December 2006
Category: Informational


                         RFC 1264 Is Obsolete

Status of This Memo

  This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
  not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
  memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

Abstract

  RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely
  different time in the life of the Internet.  It prescribed rules to
  protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have
  various undesirable properties.  In today's Internet, there are so
  many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
  believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
  get in the way.
























Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


1.  Introduction

  RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when
  publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including
  requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc.  These rules
  were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or
  unscalable new protocols.

  Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness.
  Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the
  IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner.

  The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to
  require additional implementation experience when it appears to be
  needed.  We do not need any more rules than that.  RFC 2026 says:

     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.

2.  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete

  Therefore, this document reclassifies RFC 1264 as historic.  While
  that does not prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring
  implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026
  rules, it removes the broad, general requirement from all routing
  documents.

3.  Working Group Procedures

  Some working groups within the Routing Area have developed
  procedures, based on RFC 1264, to require implementations before
  forwarding a document to the IESG.  This action does not prevent
  those working groups from continuing with these procedures if the
  working group prefers to work this way.  We encourage working groups
  to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output.

  RFC 1264 required a MIB module to be in development for a protocol;
  this is still encouraged in a broad sense.  This is not meant to be
  limiting, however; protocol management and manageability should be



Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


  considered in the context of current IETF management protocols.  In
  addition, [RTG-REQS] contains a description of a "Manageability
  Requirements" section; this is not currently a requirement but should
  be considered.

4.  Security Considerations

  While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the
  security-related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the
  requirement for a Security Considerations section) suffice.

5.  Acknowledgements

  Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to
  produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to
  today's Internet.  This work was eventually abandoned when it was
  realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings,
  Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that
  there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the
  goals of the IETF.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative 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.

6.2.  Informative References

  [RTG-REQS] Farrel, A., Andersson, L., and A. Doria, "Requirements for
             Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts", Work in
             Progress, October 2005.

Author's Address

  Bill Fenner
  AT&T Labs - Research
  1 River Oaks Place
  San Jose, CA  95134-1918
  USA

  Phone: +1 408 493-8505
  EMail: [email protected]



Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4794                  RFC 1264 Is Obsolete             December 2006


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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.

  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, THE IETF TRUST,
  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.

Intellectual Property

  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
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.






Fenner                       Informational                      [Page 4]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.rbfh.de. 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.