INTERNET DRAFT 26 May 1994
The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3.1
<<a proposed revision of RFC 1602>>
Scott Bradner, Lyman Chapin, Jon Postel
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Notice
This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating
and documenting Internet Standards. This document is provisional,
pending legal review and concurrence of the Internet Society
Trustees. It is being published in this form to keep the Internet
community informed as to the current status of policies and
procedures for Internet Standards work.
Abstract
This document is a revision of RFC 1602, which defined the official
procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards.
This revision (revision 3) includes the following major changes:
[TBD]
Contents
[TBD]
1. INTRODUCTION
This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet
community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The
Internet standards process is an activity of the Internet Society
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG).
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 internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, which
are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.
Internet Standards were once limited to those protocols composing
what has been commonly known as the "TCP/IP protocol suite".
However, the Internet has been evolving towards the support of
multiple protocol suites, especially the Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) suite. 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 may apply
only to the application of the protocol or procedure in the
Internet context, not to the specification of the protocol itself.
In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.
|
1.2 The Internet Standards Process |
In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development
and several iterations of review by the Internet community and
revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the
appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the
process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating
specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider
the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance
of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the
difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification
for the Internet community.
The goals of the Internet standards process are: |
o technical excellence;
o prior implementation and testing;
o clear, short, and easily understandable documentation;
o openness and fairness; and
o timeliness.
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and
to be flexible.
o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and
objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting
Internet Standards. They provide ample opportunity for
participation and comment by all interested parties. At each
stage of the standardization process, a specification is
repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings
and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is made
available for review via world-wide on-line directories.
o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and
adopting generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate
specification is 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.
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.
|
Participants in the Internet standards process are expected to be |
familiar with, and to follow, the general principles and specific |
directions described in this document and in the more detailed |
"Guidelines for Participation in the Internet Standards Process" [11].|
|
1.3 Organization of This Document |
|
Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet |
standards process, and specifies the requirements for record-keeping |
and public access to information. Section 3 describes the |
organizations and organizational roles that are involved in Internet |
standardization, and specifies the responsibilities that each bears |
for the administration and managment of the Internet standards |
process. Section 4 describes the Internet standards track. Section |
5 describes the two types of Internet standard specification. |
Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet |
standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally- |
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by |
other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled within the Internet |
standards process. Section 8 presents the rules that are required to |
protect intellectual property rights in the context of the |
development and use of Internet Standards. Section 9 contains a |
list of numbered references. |
Appendix A contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. Appendix B |
gives contact information for the organizations described in |
section 3. Appendix C collects issues that remain to be resolved in |
future revisions of this document. |
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS |
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.
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, from early discussion of new research concepts
to status memos about the Internet. RFC publication is managed |
by the RFC Editor (see section 3.6). |
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. |
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available |
in PostScript(R). The PostScript(R) version 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.
*********************************************************
* *
* 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. *
* *
*********************************************************
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 4). |
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.
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the
Internet should or will become Internet Standards. 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 5.2). |
********************************************************
* *
* It is important to remember that not all RFCs *
* are standards track documents, and that not all *
* standards track documents reach the level of *
* Internet Standard. *
* *
********************************************************
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. 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.
********************************************************
* *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. *
* *
********************************************************
Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track
specification that may reasonably be expected to be published
as an RFC using the phrase "Work in Progress", without
referencing an Internet Draft, as long as the specification |
from which the reference is made would stand as a complete and |
understandable document with or without the reference to the "Work |
in Progress". |
2.3 Internet Society Newsletter |
|
The Internet Society Newsletter, which is published quarterly and |
distributed to all members of the Internet Society, is the official |
"publication of record" for Internet standards actions (see section |
6.1.3). |
|
2.4 Internet Monthly Report |
|
The Internet Monthly Report is distributed by electronic mail every |
month to a specific "Internet Monthly Report" mailing list and to |
the general IETF mailing list (see Appendix B). It contains a |
summary of the standards actions completed by and pending in the |
IESG (see section 6.1.3). |
|
2.5 Notices and Record Keeping |
|
Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval |
of Internet Standards (see section 3) shall publicly announce, and |
shall maintain a publicly accessible record of, every activity in |
which it engages, to the extent that the activity represents the |
prosecution of any part of the Internet standards process. |
|
Announcements shall be made by electronic mail to the IETF mailing |
list (see Appendix B), and shall be made sufficiently far in advance |
of the activity to permit all interested parties to effectively |
participate. The announcement shall contain (or provide pointers |
to) all of the information that is necessary to support the partici- |
pation of any interested individual. In the case of a meeting, for |
example, the announcement shall include an agenda that specifies the |
standards-related issues that will be discussed. |
|
The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity |
shall include at least the following: |
|
o the charter of the organization (or a defining document |
equivalent to a charter); |
|
o complete and accurate minutes of meetings (whether face-to-face |
or by teleconference/videoconference); |
|
o electronic mail exchanges concerning matters that pertain to |
the organization's standards-related activity; and |
|
o all written contributions (in paper or electronic form) from |
participants that pertain to the organization's standards- |
related activity. |
|
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 Executive Director of the IETF |
(see section 3.2). The entire record is available to any interested |
party upon request to the Executive Director (see Appendix B). |
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.
3. INTERNET STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS AND ROLES |
|
The following organizations and organizational roles are involved in |
the Internet standards process. Contact information is contained |
in Appendix B. |
3.1 Internet Engineering Task Force |
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a loosely self-
organized group of people who make technical and other
contributions to the engineering and evolution of the
Internet and its technologies. It is the principal body
engaged in the development of new Internet Standard
specifications. The IETF is composed of individual Working |
Groups, which are grouped into Areas, each of which is
coordinated by one or more Area Directors. |
Anyone with the time and interest to do so is entitled and urged to |
participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups and to attend
IETF meetings. In many cases, active Working Group participation is
possible through electronic mail alone. Internet video |
conferencing is also being used experimentally to allow for |
remote participation. Participation in the IETF and all of its |
Working Groups is by individual technical contributors rather than
by formal representatives of organizations. |
|
For all purposes relevant to the Internet standards process, member- |
ship in the IETF is defined to be established solely and entirely by |
individual participation in the IETF's activities. The same |
criterion of individual participation is defined to establish |
membership in any of the IETF's Working Groups. |
|
New Working Groups are established within the IETF by explicit |
charter. The way in which new Working Groups are formed, and their |
charters approved, is described in section 6.2. |
|
A Working Group is managed by one or more Working Group chairs (see |
section 3.7), and it may (but is not required to) include a person or |
persons designated to serve as editor(s) of the document(s) that |
record the group's work (see section 3.8). Further details of |
Working Group operation are contained in [11]. |
|
[**NOTE: Reference 11 does not yet exist.] |
|
IETF Working Groups display a spirit of cooperation as well as a |
high degree of technical maturity; IETF participants recognize that
the greatest benefit for all members of the Internet community
results from cooperative development of technically superior
protocols and services.
|
3.2 IETF Secretariat |
|
The administrative functions necessary to support the activities of |
the IETF are performed by a Secretariat consisting of the Executive |
Director and his or her staff (as required). The Executive Director |
of the IETF is the formal point of contact for matters |
concerning any and all aspects of the Internet standards process, and |
is responsible for maintaining the formal public record of the |
Internet standards process (see section 2.5). |
|
3.3 Internet Society |
Internet standardization is an organized activity of the
Internet Society (ISOC). The ISOC is a professional society
that is concerned with the growth and evolution of the
worldwide Internet, with the way in which the Internet is and
can be used, and with the social, political, and technical
issues that arise as a result.
|
The Internet Society is managed by a Board of Trustees, which is |
responsible for approving the procedures and rules of the Internet |
standards process (which are contained in this document). |
|
The way in which the members of the ISOC Board of Trustees are |
selected, and other matters concerning the operation of the Internet |
Society, are described in the ISOC charter [6]. |
3.4 Internet Engineering Steering Group |
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible
for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet
Standards process. As part of the Internet Society, it
administers the Internet standards process according to the
rules and procedures defined in this document. The |
IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with
entry into and movement along the "standards track", as
described in section 6 of this document, including final |
approval of specifications as Internet Standards. The IESG
is composed of the IETF Area Directors and the chair of |
the IETF, who also serves as the chair of the IESG. |
|
The way in which the members of the IESG are selected, and other |
matters concerning its organization and operation, are described in |
the IESG charter [7]. |
|
[**NOTE: The description of the way in which IESG members are |
inspected, neglected, detected, and selected does not belong in this |
"standards procedures" document, but it must be somewhere, since the |
integrity of the standards process depends on having a reference to |
it. It doesn't properly belong in the IESG charter, either, but I |
have left it worded as it is above simply because I am unwilling to |
create, by fiat, yet another document that does not exist. This |
matter must be resolved before these procedures are proposed to the |
ISOC Trustees for approval.] |
3.5 Internet Architecture Board |
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is a technical advisory
group of the Internet Society. It is chartered by the
Internet Society Trustees to provide oversight of the
architecture of the Internet and its protocols, and to serve
in the context of the Internet standards process as a body to
which the decisions of the IESG may be appealed (as described
in section 6.7 of this document). The IAB is also responsible for |
reviewing and approving the charters of new Working Groups that are |
proposed for the IETF. |
|
The way in which the members of the IAB are selected, and other |
matters concerning its organization and operation, are described in |
the IAB charter [8]. |
[**SEE NOTE under 3.4; same thing applies to the IAB.] |
3.6 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority |
Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other
parameters that must be uniquely assigned. Examples include
version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible |
for assigning the values of these protocol parameters for the |
Internet. The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned
numbers and parameters in RFCs entitled "Assigned Numbers" [3]. |
|
The functions of the IANA are performed by one or more individuals |
or organizations selected in accordance with the procedures defined |
by the IANA charter [9]. |
|
[**NOTE: Needless to say, the "IANA charter" is a document that does not |
currently exist; Jon suggests that he might be willing to draft |
such a document.] |
|
3.7 Request for Comments Editor |
|
The RFC publication series (see section 2.1) is managed by an |
Editor (which may in practice be one or more individuals) responsible |
both for the mechanics of RFC publication and for upholding the |
traditionally high technical and editorial standards of the RFC |
series. |
|
The functions of the RFC Editor are performed by one or more |
individuals or organizations selected in accordance with the proce- |
dures defined by the RFC Editor charter [12]. |
|
3.8 Working Group Chair |
|
Every IETF Working Group is headed by a chair (or chairs), who is |
(are) responsible for directing the group's activities, presiding |
over the group's meetings, and ensuring that the responsibilities of |
the group with respect to its role in the Internet standards process |
are met. In particular, the WG chair is the formal point of contact |
between the WG and the IESG (via the Area Director of the area to |
which the WG belongs). |
|
The proposed chair(s) of a new Working Group is (are) identified |
in the proposed WG charter when it is submitted to the IESG for |
review. The IESG is responsible for approving the appointment of |
the WG chair(s) in conjunction with its approval of the proposed WG |
charter. The IESG shall remove a WG chair if and when the IESG |
determines that the Working Group would benefit significantly from |
the appointment of a different chair (or chairs). |
|
3.9 Document Editor |
|
Most IETF Working Groups focus their efforts on a document, or set |
of documents, that capture(s) the results of the group's work. A |
Working Group may (but is not required to) designate a person or |
persons to serve as the Editor for a particular document. The |
Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents of the |
document accurately reflect the decisions that have been made by the |
working group. |
|
As a general rule, the Working Group Chair and Document Editor |
positions are filled by different individuals. |
3.10 Internet Research Task Force |
The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) is not directly involved in |
the Internet standards process. It investigates topics considered |
to be too uncertain, too advanced, or insufficiently well-understood
to be the subject of Internet standardization. When an IRTF activity
generates a specification that is sufficiently stable to be
considered for Internet standardization, the specification is
processed through the IETF using the rules in this document.
|
The IRTF is composed of individual Working Groups, but its structure |
and mode of operation is much less formal than that of the IETF, due |
in part to the fact that it does not participate directly in the |
Internet standards process. The organization and program of work of |
the IRTF is overseen by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG), |
which consists of the chairs of the IRTF Working Groups. |
4. Internet Standard Specifications |
Specifications subject to the Internet standards process fall into one |
of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and Applicability |
Statement (AS). |
4.1 Technical Specification (TS) |
A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol,
service, procedure, convention, or format. It may completely
describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may
leave one or more parameters or options unspecified. A TS may
be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material
from other specifications by reference to other documents
(which may or may not be Internet Standards).
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.
4.2 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 4.3). |
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.
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.
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 5.1). 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.
An AS may refer to a TS that is either a standards-track speci-
fication or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity
level of "Experimental" or "Historic" (see section 5.2). |
4.3 Requirement Levels |
An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to |
each of the TSs to which it refers:
(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified
by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For
example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet
systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.
(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not
required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or
generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability
in the domain of applicability of the AS. Vendors are
strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and
protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should
omit them only if the omission is justified by some special
circumstance.
(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.
As noted in section 5.2, there are TSs that are not in the |
standards track or that have been retired from the standards
track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.
Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for
these TSs:
(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate
for use only in limited or unique circumstances. For example,
the usage of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation
should generally be limited to those actively involved with the
experiment.
(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. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed
specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of
applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a
single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information.
In such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately
distributing the information among several documents just to
preserve the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is
likely to apply to more than one domain of applicability should be
developed in a modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by
multiple ASs.
The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC 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.
[**NOTE: Although the historical precedent for including a "general |
requirement level" for each protocol in the "official protocol |
standards" list is well known, it flies directly in the face of the |
distinction between a TS and an AS. Would it be possible to stop doing |
this?] |
5. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK
Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve |
through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". These
maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and
"Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 5.1. The way in |
which specifications move along the standards track is described in |
section 6. |
Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet
Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and
the recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and
procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement
of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of
descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet
Standards. A set of maturity levels is defined in section 5.2 to |
cover these and other specifications that are not considered to be on |
the standards track. |
5.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels |
Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, |
and acceptance. Within the Internet standards process, these stages
are formally labeled "maturity levels".
This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
characteristics of specifications at each level.
5.1.1 Proposed Standard
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 (see section 6). |
A Proposed Standard specification is generally
stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be
well-understood, has received significant community review, and
appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered
valuable. However, further experience might result in a change
or even retraction of the specification before it advances.
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. Typically, such a
specification will be published initially with Experimental status |
(see section 5.2.1), and moved to the standards track only after |
sufficient implementation or operational experience has been
obtained.
A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions
with respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the
IESG may waive this requirement in order to allow a specification |
to advance to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to |
be useful and necessary (and timely) even with known technical |
omissions. |
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 customer base is not
recommended. |
5.1.2 Draft Standard
A specification from which at least two independent and
interoperable implementations have been developed, and for
which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. This
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. In cases in which one or more options or features |
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable imple- |
mentations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard |
level only if those options or features are removed. |
A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional
or more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to
demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale
use in production environments.
A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final
specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve
specific problems encountered. In most circumstances, it is
reasonable for vendors to deploy implementations of draft
standards into the customer base.
5.1.3 Internet Standard
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.
5.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels
Not every TS or AS is on the standards track. A TS may not be
intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for
eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
track. A TS or AS may have been superseded by a more recent Internet |
Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. |
Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled |
with one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", |
"Informational", or "Historic". There are no time limits
associated with these non-standards track labels, and the documents
bearing these labels are not Internet Standards in any sense.
5.2.1 Experimental
The "Experimental" designation on a TS 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), or
it may be an individual contribution.
5.2.2 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 below).
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 7 may be published as Informational RFCs, with the |
permission of the owner and the concurrence of the RFC Editor. |
Documents intended to be published with Experimental or Informational |
status should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC |
Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgement 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, falls below |
the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs. |
|
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational |
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet standards |
process, the RFC Editor shall refer to the IESG any document |
submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in |
the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be subject to the requirements of |
the Internet standards process. 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. |
|
If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the |
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines |
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes |
something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an esta- |
blished IETF effort, the document may still be published as an |
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the |
IESG may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either |
in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in |
order to make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. |
5.2.3 Historic
A TS or AS 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.)
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS
The mechanics of the Internet standards process involve decisions |
of the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the |
standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification |
from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably |
objective criteria (described below and in section 5) are available |
to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, |
along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee |
of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any |
specification. The experienced collective judgement of the IESG |
concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for |
elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential |
component of the decision-making process. |
6.1 Standards Actions |
A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track --
must be approved by the IESG.
6.1.1 Initiation of Action
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation to the |
appropriate IETF Area Director or to the IESG as a whole by the |
individual or group that is responsible for the specification |
(usually an IETF Working Group). |
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), by sending the document in an electronic |
mail message to the Internet Drafts address at the IETF Secre- |
tariat (see Appendix B). It shall remain as an Internet Draft |
for a period of time, not less than two weeks, that permits useful |
community review, after which it may be submitted to the IESG |
with a recommendation for action by sending an electronic mail |
message to the Executive Director of the IETF (see Appendix B) |
specifying the name of the document and the recommended action. |
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted |
to it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria |
for the recommended action (see sections 6.3 and 6.4), and shall |
in addition determine whether or not the technical quality of the |
specification comports with that expected for the maturity level |
to which the specification is recommended. |
In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these |
determinations, particularly when the specification is considered |
by the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential |
impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the |
IESG may, at its discretion, commission an independent technical |
review of the specification. Such a review shall be commissioned |
whenever the circumstances surrounding a recommended standards |
action are considered by the IESG to require a broader basis than |
is normally available from the IESG itself for agreement within |
the Internet community that the specification is ready for
advancement.
The IESG shall communicate its findings to the IETF to permit a
final review by the general Internet community. This "last-
call" notification shall be via electronic mail to the IETF
mailing list (see Appendix B). Comments on a "last call" shall |
be accepted from anyone, and should be sent to the Executive |
Director of the IETF (see Appendix B). |
In a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after issuing
the last-call notification to the IETF mailing list, the IESG
shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve |
the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision
via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list. In those cases in |
which the IESG believes that the community interest would be |
served by allowing more time for comment, it may decide to |
explicitly lengthen the last-call period. In those cases in |
which the proposed standards action involves a document for which |
no corresponding IETF working group is currently active, the |
last-call period shall be no shorter than four weeks. |
6.1.3 Publication
Following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the
RFC Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC. The
specification shall at that point be removed from the Internet |
Drafts directory.
An official summary of standards actions completed and pending
shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter |
(see section 2.3). This shall constitute the "publication of |
record" for Internet standards actions. In addition, the IESG
shall publish a monthly summary of standards actions completed
and pending in the Internet Monthly Report (see section 2.4). |
Finally, the IAB shall publish quarterly an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all |
Internet protocol and service specifications, both within and
outside the standards track.
6.2 Formation and Chartering of IETF Working Groups |
|
A proposal to form a new IETF working group shall first be brought |
to the Area Director(s) responsible for the area into which the new |
working group would logically fall; or to the IESG as a whole if |
it is not clear to the proposer(s) which area would be the most |
logical for the proposed working group. Following discussion (and, |
if necessary, revision) of the proposed WG charter by the proposer(s) |
and the AD(s) (or IESG as a whole), an announcement of the proposed |
new working group and its charter shall be posted to the IESG and |
IAB electronic mail lists (see Appendix B). No sooner than one week |
after this announcement, the IESG shall make its decision to approve |
or disapprove the formation of the working group and its charter, |
and shall notify the IETF of its decision via electronic mail to the |
IETF mailing list. |
6.3 Entering the Standards Track
A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may
originate from:
(a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),
(b) independent activity by individuals, or
(c) an external organization.
Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specifications that
enter the standards track. In cases (b) and (c), the work might
be tightly integrated with the work of an existing IETF Working
Group, or it might be offered for standardization without prior
IETF involvement. In most cases, a specification resulting from
an effort that took place outside of an IETF Working Group will be
submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and
refinement. If necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be |
created.
For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated
with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to
afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
of the specification. If a Working Group is unable to resolve all
technical and usage questions, additional independent review may
be necessary. Such reviews may be done within a Working Group
context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically
for that purpose. Ad hoc review committees may also be convened
in other circumstances when the nature of review required is too
small to require the formality of Working Group creation. It is
the responsibility of the appropriate IETF Area Director to
determine what, if any, review of an external specification is
needed and how it shall be conducted.
6.4 Advancing in the Standards Track
The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action |
that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards |
track. |
A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
least six (6) months.
A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at
least four (4) months. |
These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity
for community review without severely impacting timeliness. These
intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the
corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
publication, the date of IESG approval of the action.
A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG
shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a
significant revision may require that the specification accumulate
more experience at its current maturity level before progressing.
Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,
the IESG may recommend that the revision be treated as a new
document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.
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 corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-at-
level clock.
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.
Following each such review, the IESG shall approve termination or
continuation of the development. This decision shall be communicated
to the IETF by electronic mail to the IETF mailing list (see section |
B.1), 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.
6.5 Revising a Standard
A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
completely new specification. Once the new version has reached
the Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version,
which will move to Historic status. However, in some cases both
versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the
requirements of an installed base. In this situation, the
relationship between the previous and the new versions must be
explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another
appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see
section 4.2). |
6.6 Retiring a Standard
As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new
Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that
one or more existing Internet Standards for the same function
should be retired. In this case, the IESG shall approve a change
of status of the superseded specification(s) from Standard to
Historic. This recommendation shall be issued with the same
Last-Call and notification procedures used for any other standards
action.
6.7 Conflict Resolution and Appeals
IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which
sometimes requires difficult compromises between or among different |
technical proposals. However, there are times when even the most |
reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To
achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be
resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This section |
specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Internet |
standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes |
whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet standards process |
participants ordinarily reach consensus. |
|
An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group |
or not) may disagree with a Working Group decision based on his or |
her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been |
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group |
has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality |
and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant |
jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group |
process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two |
types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by |
the same process of review. |
|
A person who disagrees with a Working Group decision shall always |
first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), who may |
involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working Group as |
a whole) in the discussion. If the disagreement cannot be resolved |
in this way, it shall be brought to the attention of the IESG member |
(or members) who is (are) responsible for the area in which the |
Working Group is chartered. The responsible IESG member(s) shall |
attempt to resolve the dispute by ascertaining and seeking clarifi- |
cation of the relevant matters of fact concerning the way in which |
the Working Group decision was reached and any assertions that have |
been made about its technical soundness. The responsible IESG |
member(s) may, at his or her (their) discretion, bring the matter |
before the IESG as a whole. Whether or not the IESG as a whole |
participates in the effort to resolve the disagreement, the responsi- |
ble IESG member(s) shall make a decision concerning the disposition |
of the dispute, and communicate that decision to the parties |
involved, within a reasonable period of time. |
|
[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not esta- |
blish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered |
"reasonable" in all cases. The Internet standards process places |
a premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately |
foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor |
of a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may |
be reached.] |
|
If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of all |
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal |
the decision to the IAB by sending notice of such appeal to the |
IAB electronic mail list (see Appendix B). The IAB's review of the |
dispute shall be informed by the findings of the IESG, by any |
additional representation that the original petitioner(s) or others |
wish to make in response to the IESG's findings, and by its own |
investigation of the circumstances and the claims made by all |
parties. The IAB shall make and announce its decision within a |
reasonable period of time (see above). |
|
The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether |
or not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with |
respect to all questions of technical merit. Further recourse is |
available only in cases in which the procedures themselves are |
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the |
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet standards process. |
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of |
Trustees, by formal notice to the ISOC electronic mail list (see |
Appendix B). The Executive Director of the Internet Society shall |
acknowledge such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time |
of acknowledgement advise the petitioner of the expected duration |
of the Trustees' review of the appeal (which shall be completed |
within a reasonable period of time). The Trustees' decision upon |
completion of their review shall be final with respect to all |
aspects of the dispute. |
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish
standards documents for network protocols and services. When these
external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is
desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to
establish Internet Standards relating to these external
specifications.
There are two categories of external specifications:
(1) Open Standards
Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as
ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, develop a variety of protocol and
service specifications that are similar to Technical
Specifications defined here. National and international groups
also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to
Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-
specific detail concerned with the practical application of
their standards. All of these are considered to be "open |
external standards" for the purposes of the Internet standards |
process. |
(2) Vendor Specifications
A vendor-proprietary specification that has come to be widely
used in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as
if it were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally
developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is
controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.
To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an
"Internet version" of an existing external specification unless an
explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However,
there are several ways in which an external specification that is
important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be
adopted for Internet use.
(a) Incorporation of an Open Standard
An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards |
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set |
"ASCII" [2]. The reference must be to a specific version of the |
external standard, e.g., by publication date or by edition number,
according to the prevailing convention of the organization that is
responsible for the specification. Whenever possible, the |
referenced specification shall be available online. |
(b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification
Vendor-proprietary specifications may be incorporated by
reference to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the
vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily
available, the IESG may request that it be published as an
Informational RFC.
For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within
the Internet standards process, the proprietor must meet the
requirements of section 8, and the specification shall be |
made available online.
The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary
specification over the technically equivalent and competing
specification(s) of other vendors by making any incorporated vendor |
specification "required" or "recommended". |
(c) Assumption
An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification
and develop it into an Internet TS or AS. This is acceptable if
(1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in
compliance with the requirements of section 8, and (2) change |
control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the
specification. Sample text illustrating the way in which a vendor |
might convey change control to the Internet Society is contained in |
[10]. |
8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
8.1. General Policy
In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.
8.2. Definitions
As used in this section, the following terms have the indicated
meanings:
o "Trade secrets" are confidential, proprietary information.
o "Contribution" means any disclosure of information or ideas,
whether in oral, written, or other form of expression, by an
individual or entity ("Contributor").
o "Standards track documents" are specifications and other
documents that have been elevated to the Internet standards
track in accordance with the Internet standards process.
o "Copyrights" are purportedly valid claims to copyright in all
or part of a contribution to standards work, whether or not
the contribution becomes a standards track document,
including but not limited to any works by third parties that
the contribution is based on or incorporates.
o "ISOC" refers to the Internet Society and its trustees,
officers, employees, contractors, and agents, as well as the
IAB, IETF, IESG, IRTF, IRSG, and other task forces,
committees, and groups coordinated by the Internet Society.
o "Standards work" is work involved in the creation, testing,
development, revision, adoption, or maintenance of an
Internet Standard that is carried out under the auspices of
ISOC.
o "Internet community" refers to the entire set of persons,
whether individuals or entities, including but not limited to
technology developers, service vendors, and researchers, who
use the Internet, either directly or indirectly, and users of
any other networks which implement and use Internet
Standards.
8.3 Trade Secret Rights
Except as otherwise provided under this section, ISOC will not
accept, in connection with standards work, any idea, technology,
information, document, specification, work, or other contribution,
whether written or oral, that is a trade secret or otherwise
subject to any commitment, understanding, or agreement to keep it
confidential or otherwise restrict its use or dissemination; and,
specifically, ISOC does not assume any confidentiality obligation
with respect to any such contribution.
8.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the wide
dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to establish
specific understandings concerning any copyrights, patents, patent
applications, or other rights in the contribution. The procedures
set forth in this section apply to contributions submitted after 1
April 1994. For Internet standards documents published before
this date (the RFC series has been published continuously since
April 1969), information on rights and permissions must be sought
directly from persons claiming rights therein.
8.4.1. All Contributions
By submission of a contribution to ISOC, and in consideration
of possible dissemination of the contribution to the Internet
community, a contributor is deemed to agree to the following
terms and conditions:
l. Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a
perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right
and license under any copyrights in the contribution to
reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly, and
prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate
all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce,
distribute, and perform or display publicly any such
derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to
authorize others to do so.
2. Contributor acknowledges that ISOC has no duty to publish
or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution.
3. Contributor grants ISOC permission to reference the
name(s) and address(s) of the contributor as well as other
persons who are named as contributors.
4. Where the contribution was prepared jointly with others,
or is a work for hire, the contributor represents and
warrants that the other owner(s) of rights have been
informed of the rights and permissions granted to ISOC and
that any required authorizations have been obtained.
Copies of any such required authorizations will be
furnished to ISOC, upon request.
5. Contributor acknowledges and agrees that ISOC assumes no
obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to
any aspect of the contribution, and warrants that the
contribution does not violate the rights of others.
6. All material objects in which contributions are submitted
to ISOC become the property of ISOC and need not be
returned to the contributor.
Where appropriate, written confirmation of the above terms and
conditions will be obtained in writing by ISOC, usually by
electronic mail; however, a decision not to obtain such
confirmation in a given case shall not act to revoke the prior
grant of rights and permissions with respect to the
contribution as provided herein. Except as provided below, the
Executive Director of the IETF (see section 3.2), or |
a person designated by the Executive Director, shall be |
responsible for obtaining written confirmations.
In the case of IETF Working Groups, the responsibility for
identifying the principal contributor(s) for purposes of
obtaining written confirmation of the above rights and
permissions shall be assumed by the Editor (see section 2.8) or |
Chair (see section 2.7) of the |
particular Group. While only those persons named as principal
contributor(s) will generally be requested to provide written
confirmation, it is the responsibility of all contributors to
standards work to inform the IETF Secretariat of any
proprietary claims in any contributions and to furnish the
Secretariat with any required confirmation.
Where any person participating in standards work asserts any
proprietary right in a contribution, it is the responsibility
of such person to so inform the Editor or Chair of the group,
promptly, in writing. The Editor or Chair shall then determine |
whether to list the person as a principal contributor, or to
revise the document to omit the particular contribution in
question.
8.4.2. Standards Track Documents
(A) ISOC shall not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any |
standards, including but not limited to standards labelled
Proposed, Draft, or Internet Standard, which can be |
practiced only by using technology or works that are subject |
to known copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
rights, except with the prior written assurance of the
owner of rights that:
l. ISOC may, without cost, freely implement and use the
technology or works in its standards work;
2. upon adoption and during maintenance of an Internet
Standard, any party will be able to obtain the right
to implement and use the technology or works under
specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms; and
3. the party giving the assurance has the right and
power to grant the licenses and knows of no other
copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other
rights that may prevent ISOC and members of the
Internet community from implementing and operating
under the standard.
(B) ISOC disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
existence of or for evaluating any copyrights, patents,
patent applications, or other rights, on behalf of or for
the benefit of any member of the Internet community, and
ISOC takes no position on the validity or scope of any
such rights. Furthermore, ISOC shall take no position on the |
ownership of inventions made during standards work, except
for inventions of which an employee or agent of the
Internet Society is a joint inventor. In the latter case,
the Internet Society shall make its rights available under |
license to anyone in the Internet community in accordance
with the written assurances set forth below.
8.5. Notices
(A) When a written assurance has been obtained as set forth
below, the relevant standards track documents shall include
the following notice:
"__________(name of rights' owner) has provided written
assurance to the Internet Society that any party will be
able to obtain, under reasonable, nondiscriminatory
terms, the right to use the technology covered
by__________(list copyrights, patents, patent
applications, and other rights) to practice the
standard. A copy of this assurance may be obtained from
the Executive Director of the IETF. The |
Internet Society takes no position on the validity or
scope of the copyrights, patents, patent applications,
or other rights, or on the appropriateness of the terms
and conditions of the assurances. The Internet Society
does not make any representation there are no other
rights which may apply to the practice of this standard,
nor that it has made any effort to identify any such
rights. For further information on the Internet
Society's procedures with respect to rights in standards
and standards-related documentation, see RFC_____,
dated________."
(B) ISOC encourages all interested parties to bring to its
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of
any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights
pertaining to Internet Standards. For this purpose, each
standards document shall include the following invitation: |
"The Internet Society invites any interested party to
bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent
applications, or other proprietary rights which purport
to cover technology or works that may be required to
practice this standard. Please address the information
to the Executive Director of the Internet Engineering
Task Force Secretariat."
(C) When applicable, the following sentence shall be included in |
the notice:
"As of __________, no information about any copyrights,
patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights has been received."
(D) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be |
included in all ISOC standards-related documentation:
"Copyright (c) ISOC (year date). Permission is granted
to reproduce, distribute, transmit, and otherwise
communicate to the public any material subject to
copyright by ISOC, provided that credit is given to the
source. For information concerning required
permissions, please contact the Executive Director of
the Internet Engineering Task Force Secretariat. |
"ISOC hereby informs the Internet community and other |
persons that any standards, whether or not elevated to
the Internet Standard level of maturity, or any
standards-related documentation made available under the
auspices of ISOC are provided on an "AS IS" basis and
ISOC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR
THAT ANY STANDARD OR DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
RIGHTS OF OTHERS." |
8.6. Assurances
The agreement on assurances set forth below will normally be
entered into between the owner of rights and ISOC at the time a
standards track document in which proprietary rights are claimed
reaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity:
This is an agreement between ______________(hereinafter
called "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf of
itself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors and
agents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering
Steering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other task
forces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet Society
(hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users of
the Internet and users of any other networks which implement and
use Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC called
"Internet community"). This agreement takes effect when signed on
behalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society.
The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have rights
in patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and
other proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter called
"Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the Internet
community to implement and operate under the standards set forth
in ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the listed
standards and any similar or related standards now existing or
later developed are together hereinafter called "Standards"). The
Rights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A.
The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed in
Schedule A from time to time, and, in particular, immediately
prior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet Standard
level of maturity in accordance with the Internet Standards
Process, and to inform the Executive Director of the Internet
Engineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of any
new Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list in
Schedule A.
The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will derive
benefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community to
implement and operate under the Standards without interference of
any of the Rights. The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt,
or continue to maintain the Standards unless written assurances
are given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights.
Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above and
other good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes the
assurances set forth herein.
The Rights Holder grants to ISOC a cost-free, perpetual,
non-exclusive, world-wide license under the Rights with respect to
implementing and operating under the Standards. The license
extends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards without
limit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose,
test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain,
withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare derivative
works in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and to
authorize others to do so. The Rights Holder also grants ISOC
permission to use the name and address of Rights Holder in
connection with the Standards.
The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in any
trade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the trade
secrets available without restriction to the Internet community.
The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes no
obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any
aspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do not
violate the rights of others.
The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder shall
grant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary of
this agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide license
under the Rights, with respect to operating under the Standards
for a reasonable royalty and under other terms which are
reasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that all
members of the Internet community will be able to operate under
the Standards at a minimal cost. The license discussed in this
paragraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test,
enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs, and
hardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards.
Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying the
terms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any other
license under the Rights previously or later granted by the Rights
Holder.
A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible on
the Internet, and shall become effective immediately when the
member of the Internet community executes it and posts it for
delivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically.
The initial version of the license shall be in the form attached
as Schedule B.
The Rights Holder represents and warrants that its rights are
sufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the other
assurances recited in this agreement. The Rights Holder further
represents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of any
other party in any country which would block or impede the ability
of ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate under
the Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder from
granting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement.
This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC to
propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or any
other standard.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994.
[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.
[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.
[6] foo, "Charter of the Internet Society", RFC xxxx. [**NOTE: I do
not believe that the ISOC charter has ever been published as an RFC.]
[7] Mockapetris, P., "Charter of the Internet Engineering Steering
Group", RFC xxxx.
[8] Huitema, C., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board", RFC 1601.
[9] Postel, J., "Charter of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority",
RFC xxxx.
[10] foo, "Standard Form for Conveyance of Change Control to the Internet
Society", RFC xxxx.
[11] foo, "Guidelines for Participation in the Internet Standards
Process", RFC xxxx.
[12] Reynolds, J., "Charter of the Internet Request for Comments Editor",
RFC xxxx.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
AS: Applicability Statement
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ITU-TS: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization;
ITU-TS was formerly called CCITT.
IAB: Internet Architecture Board
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
IP: Internet Protocol
IRSG Internet Research Steering Group
IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
ISOC: Internet Society
MIB: Management Information Base
OSI: Open Systems Interconnection
RFC: Request for Comments
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol
TS: Technical Specification
APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS
B.1 IETF Mailing List
The requirements for announcement or notice established by the pro-
cedures defined in this document are satisfied by electronic mail
distributed to the mailing list "
[email protected]". Persons wishing to
receive announcements posted to this list should send an electronic
mail message to "
[email protected]" (NOT to the list itself).
B.2 Executive Director of the IETF
The formal point of contact for matters concerning the Internet
standards process may be reached by sending electronic mail to
"
[email protected]".
B.3 Internet Drafts
A document may be submitted for posting as an Internet Draft by
sending it in an electronic mail message to
"
[email protected]".
B.4 Request for Comments Editor
The electronic mail address of the RFC editor is
"
[email protected]".
B.5 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword,
or parameter assignment, send an email message to "
[email protected]".
B.6 Internet Engineering Steering Group
To contact the IESG, send an email message to "
[email protected]".
B.7 Internet Architecture Board
To contact the IAB, send an email message to "
[email protected]".
B.8 Internet Society
To contact the Executive Director of the ISOC, send an email message
to "
[email protected]".
APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES
It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following areas
should be considered.
o Policy Recommendations and Operational Guidelines
Internet standards have generally been concerned with the technical
specifications for hardware and software required for computer
communication across interconnected networks. The Internet itself
is composed of networks operated by a great variety of
organizations, with diverse goals and rules. However, 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. Specific rules for establishing
policy recommendations and operational guidelines for the Internet
in an open and fair fashion should be developed, published, and
adopted by the Internet community.
o Industry Consortia
The rules presented in Section 7 for external standards should be
expanded to handle industry consortia.
o Tracking Procedure
It has been suggested that there should be a formal procedure for
tracking problems and change requests as a specification moves
through the standards track. Such a procedure might include
written responses, which were cataloged and disseminated, or simply
a database that listed changes between versions. At the present
time, there are not sufficient resources to administer such a
procedure.
A simpler proposal is to keep a change log for documents.
o Time Limit
An explicit time limit (e.g., 3 months) has been suggested for IESG
resolution concerning a standards action under the rules of Section
6.1.2. If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason,
the IETF would have to be explicitly notified.
o Bug Reporting
There is no documented mechanism for an individual community member
to use to report a problem or bug with a standards-track
specification. One suggestion was that every standards RFC should
include an email list for the responsible Working Group.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Authors' Addresses
