GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1310

Network Working Group Internet Activities Board Request for Comments: 1310 Lyman Chapin, Chair

                                                            March 1992
                   The Internet Standards Process

Status of this Memo

 This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating
 and documenting Internet Standards.  Distribution of this memo is
 unlimited.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................  2
    1.1. Internet Standards .......................................  2
    1.2. Organization .............................................  3
 2.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ...............................  4
    2.1. Introduction .............................................  4
    2.2. The Internet Standards Track .............................  5
    2.3. Requests for Comments (RFCs) .............................  5
    2.4. Internet Drafts ..........................................  6
    2.5. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................  7
    2.6. Review and Approval ......................................  8
    2.7. Entering the Standards Track .............................  9
    2.8. Advancing in the Standards Track .........................  9
    2.9. Revising a Standard ...................................... 10
 3.  NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 10
    3.1  Types of Specifications .................................. 10
    3.2  Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 12
    3.3  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 13
    3.4  Requirement Levels ....................................... 14
 4.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 15
 5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 17
 6.  PATENT POLICY ................................................ 17
    6.1  Statement from Patent Holder ............................. 18
    6.2  Record of Statement ...................................... 18
    6.3  Notice ................................................... 18
    6.4  Identifying Patents ...................................... 19
 7.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES ............................... 19
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ............................................. 20
 APPENDIX B: UNRESOLVED ISSUES .................................... 21
 Security Considerations .......................................... 23
 Author's Address ................................................. 23

IAB [Page 1] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

1. INTRODUCTION

 1.1  Internet Standards
    This memo documents the process currently used for the
    standardization of Internet protocols and procedures.
    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, that
    are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.
    The architecture and technical specifications of the Internet are
    the result of numerous research and development activities
    conducted over a period of two decades, performed by the network
    R&D community, by service and equipment vendors, and by government
    agencies around the world.
    In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
    and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
    independent, and interoperable implementations with operational
    experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably
    useful in some or all parts of the Internet.
    The principal set of Internet Standards is commonly known as the
    "TCP/IP protocol suite".  As the Internet evolves, new protocols
    and services, in particular those for Open Systems Interconnection
    (OSI), have been and will be deployed in traditional TCP/IP
    environments, leading to an Internet that supports multiple
    protocol suites.  This document concerns all protocols,
    procedures, and conventions used in the Internet, not just the
    TCP/IP protocols.
    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
    perhaps revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard
    by the appropriate body (see below), and is published.
    In practice, the process is somewhat more complicated, due to (1)
    the number and type of possible sources for specifications; (2)
    the need to prepare and revise a specification in a manner that
    preserves the interests of all of the affected parties;  (3) the
    importance of establishing widespread community agreement on its
    technical content; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the
    utility of a particular specification for the Internet community.

IAB [Page 2] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    Some specifications that are candidates for Internet
    standardization are the result of organized efforts directly
    within the Internet community; others are the result of work that
    was not originally organized as an Internet effort, but which was
    later adopted by the Internet community.
    From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to
    remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
    requirements and technology into the design and implementation of
    the global Internet.  Users of the Internet and providers of the
    equipment, software, and services that support it should
    anticipate and embrace this adaptability as a major tenet of
    Internet philosophy.
    The procedures described in this document are the result of three
    years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
    increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
    Comments and suggestions are invited for improvement in these
    procedures.
 1.2  Organization
    The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the primary coordinating
    committee for Internet design, engineering, and management [1].
    The IAB has delegated to its Internet Engineering Task Force
    (IETF) the primary responsibility for the development and review
    of potential Internet Standards from all sources.  The IETF forms
    Working Groups to pursue specific technical issues, frequently
    resulting in the development of one or more specifications that
    are proposed for adoption as Internet Standards.
    Final decisions on Internet standardization are made by the IAB,
    based upon recommendations from the Internet Engineering Steering
    Group (IESG), the leadership body of the IETF.  IETF Working
    Groups are organized into areas, and each area is coordinated by
    an Area Director.  The Area Directors and the IETF Chairman are
    included in the IESG.
    Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is
    urged to attend IETF meetings and to participate actively in one
    or more IETF Working Groups.  Participation is by individual
    technical contributors, rather than formal representatives of
    organizations.  The process works because the IETF Working Groups
    display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of
    technical maturity; most IETF members agree that the greatest
    benefit for all members of the Internet community results from
    cooperative development of technically superior protocols and
    services.

IAB [Page 3] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    A second body under the IAB, the Internet Research Task Force
    (IRTF), 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, it is processed through the IETF.
    Section 2 of this document describes the process and rules for
    Internet standardization.  Section 3 presents the nomenclature for
    different kinds and levels of Internet standard technical
    specifications and their applicability.  Section 4 defines how
    relevant externally-sponsored specifications and practices that
    are developed and controlled by other bodies or by vendors are
    handled in the Internet standardization process.  Section 5
    presents the requirement for prior disclosure of the existence of
    intellectual property rights.  Section 6 describes the rules for
    Internet Standards that involve patents.

2. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

 2.1. Introduction
    The procedures described in this document are intended to provide
    a clear, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and
    adopting Internet Standards for protocols and services.  The
    procedures provide ample opportunity for participation and comment
    by all interested parties.  Before an Internet Standard is
    adopted, it is repeatedly discussed (and perhaps debated) in open
    open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is
    available for review via world-wide on-line directories.
    These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and adopting
    generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate for Internet
    standardization 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.
    The procedures that are described here provide a great deal of
    flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that
    occur in the Internet standardization process.  Experience has
    shown this flexibility to be vital in achieving the following
    goals for Internet standardization:

IAB [Page 4] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

  • high quality,
  • prior implementation and testing,
  • openness and fairness, and
  • timeliness.
 2.2.  The Internet Standards Track
    Specifications that are destined 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 below in
    Section 3.2.
    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 3.3 to
    cover these and other "off-track" specifications.
 2.3.  Requests for Comments (RFCs)
    Each distinct version of a specification is published as part of
    the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series.
    RFCs form a series of publications of networking technical
    documents, begun in 1969 as part of the original DARPA 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.  The IAB views the RFC publication process to be
    sufficiently important to warrant including the RFC Editor in the
    IAB membership.
    The status of specifications on the Internet standards track is
    summarized periodically in a summary RFC entitled "IAB Official
    Protocol Standards" [2].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and
    other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
    specification.

IAB [Page 5] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

  • * * The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC is the * * authoritative statement of the status of any * * particular Internet specification, * and it is the "Publication of Record" with respect to Internet standardization. The STD documents form a subseries of the RFC series. When a specification has been adopted as a Standard, its RFC is labeled with a STDxxx number [9] in addition to its RFC number. Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet should or will become Internet Standards. Such non-standards track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet standardization; generally, they will be published directly as RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor. These RFCs will be marked as "Experimental" or "Informational" (see section 3.3). * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * * are standards track documents, and that not all * * standards track documents reach the level of * * Standard. * **
 2.4.  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.
    After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
    cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or
    advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made
    available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an Internet
    Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review,
    at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG.
    An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the
    Internet Draft directory.  A document 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 Draft directory.  At any time, an

IAB [Page 6] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    Internet Draft may be replace 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 next section.  Internet Drafts have no formal status, and
    are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet
    activity, and they 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.
 2.5.  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
    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 IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
    (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the
    Internet.  The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned
    numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [8].
    Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some
    protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet
    Standard.  For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP
    is a Standard.  A particular value within a category may be
    assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification
    requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be
    Experimental, or it may be private.
    Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values,
    so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or
    private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA.  Private
    protocols often become public.  Programmers are often tempted to
    choose a "random" value, or guess the next unassigned value of a
    parameter; both are hazardous.
    The IANA is tasked to avoid frivolous assignments and to
    distinguish different assignments uniquely.  The IANA accomplishes
    both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol
    or service to which a value is to be assigned.  Judgment on the
    adequacy of the description resides with the IANA.  In the case of
    a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding
    technical specifications provide the required documentation for
    IANA.  For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential
    any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page)
    writeup is still required for an assignment.
    To contact the IANA for information or to request a number,

IAB [Page 7] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    keyword or parameter assignment send an email message to
    "iana@isi.edu".
 2.6.  Review and Approval
    A standards action -- entering a particular specification into, or
    advancing it within, the standards track -- shall be recommended
    to the appropriate IETF Area Director, or to the Chairman of the
    IETF, by the individual or group that is responsible for the
    specification.  Usually, the recommendation will come from an IETF
    Working Group.  The Area Director or IETF chairman, in
    consultation with the IESG, shall determine if an independent
    technical review of the specification is required, and shall
    commission one if necessary.
    When a specification is sufficiently important in terms of its
    potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet
    protocols, the IESG shall form a special review and analysis
    committee to prepare an evaluation of the specification.  Such a
    committee is commissioned to provide an objective basis for
    agreement within the Internet community that the specification is
    ready for advancement.  Furthermore, when the criteria for
    advancement along the standards track for an important class of
    specifications (e.g., routing protocols [6]) are not universally
    recognized, the IESG shall commission the development and
    publication of category-specific acceptance criteria.
    The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the
    applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections 3.2
    and 3.3 of this document) and shall communicate its findings to
    the IETF to permit a final review by the general Internet
    community.  This IETF notification shall be via electronic mail to
    the IETF mailing list; in addition, there will often be a
    presentation or statement by the appropriate working group or Area
    Director during an IETF plenary meeting.  Any significant issues
    that have not been resolved satisfactorily during the development
    of the specification may be raised at this time for final
    resolution by the IESG.
    The IESG shall communicate to the IAB its recommendation for
    action, with a citation to the most current version of the
    document.  The IETF shall be notified by email of any such
    recommendation.  If the IAB finds a significant problem, or needs
    clarification on a particular point, it shall resolve the matter
    with the Working Group and its chairperson and/or the document
    author, with the assistance and concurrence of the IESG and the
    relevant IETF Area Director.

IAB [Page 8] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    Following IAB approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC
    Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC.  The
    specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts
    directory.
 2.7.  Entering the Standards Track
    A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may
    originate from:
    (a)  an IAB-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),
    (b)  independent activity by individuals, or
    (c)  an external organization.
    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 context 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.  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.
 2.8.  Advancing in the Standards Track
    A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
    least 6 months and at the Draft Standard level for at least 4
    months.
    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, and they will
    not affect advancement through the standards track.  A significant
    revision may require that the specification accumulate more

IAB [Page 9] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    experience at its current maturity level before progressing.
    Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,
    the IESG may decide to treat the revision as if it were a new
    document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.
    A specification that has not reached the maturity level of
    Standard within twenty-four months of first becoming a Proposed
    Standard shall be reviewed for viability by the IESG, which shall
    recommend either termination or continuation of the development
    effort to the IAB.  Such a recommendation shall be communicated to
    the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, to allow
    the Internet community an opportunity to comment.  This provision
    is not intended to threaten legitimate and active Working Group
    efforts, but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for
    terminating a moribund effort.
 2.9.  Revising a Standard
    A recommendation to revise an established Internet Standard shall
    be evaluated by the IESG with respect to the operational impact of
    introducing a new version while the previous version is still in
    use.  If the IESG accepts the recommendation, the new version 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 may
    immediately replace the previous version.  In some cases, both
    versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the
    requirements of an installed base; however, 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 3.1.2).

3. NOMENCLATURE

 3.1.  Types of Specifications
    The specifications subject to the Internet standardization process
    fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and
    Applicability Statements (AS).
    3.1.1.  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

IAB [Page 10] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

       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, is
       defined by an Applicability Statement.
    3.1.2.  Applicability Statement (AS)
       An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
       circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a
       particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs
       that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 4.
       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.
       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 [3,4,5], such as Internet
       routers or Internet hosts.
       An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards
       track than any TS to which the AS applies.  For example, a TS
       at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at the
       Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not an AS at the
       Standard level.  Like a TS, an AS does not come into effect
       until it reaches Standard level.
    Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice an
    Internet Standard RFC may include elements of both an AS and one
    or more TSs in a single document.  For example, Technical
    Specifications that are developed specifically and exclusively for
    some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail server

IAB [Page 11] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    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.
 3.2.  Standards Track Maturity Levels
    ASs and TSs 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.  The general
    procedures for developing a specification and processing it
    through the maturity levels along the standards track were
    discussed in Section 2 above.
    3.2.1. Proposed Standard
       The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
       Standard".  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.
       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.  Furthermore, the IAB 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 in
       the Experimental state (see below), which is not part of the
       standards track, 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.  In some
       cases, the IESG may recommend that the requirements be
       explicitly reduced in order to allow a protocol to advance into

IAB [Page 12] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

       the Proposed Standard state.  This can happen if the
       specification is considered to be useful and necessary (and
       timely), even absent the missing features.  For example, some
       protocols have been advanced by explicitly deciding to omit
       security features at the Proposed Standard level, since an
       overall security architecture was still under development.
    3.2.2. Draft Standard
       A specification from which at least two independent and
       interoperable implementations have been developed, and for
       which adequate 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.
       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.
    3.2.3. Standard
       A specification for which significant implementation and
       operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
       Standard level.  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.
 3.3. 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 more recent
    Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or
    disfavor.  Such specifications are labeled with one of three
    "non-standards track" maturity levels: "Historic", "Experimental",
    and "Informational".
    3.3.1. Historic
       A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent
       specification or is for any other reason considered to be

IAB [Page 13] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

       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.)
    3.3.2. Experimental
       The "Experimental" designation on a TS permits widespread
       dissemination (through publication according to the procedures
       defined by this document) with explicit caveats:  it may
       specify behavior that has not been thoroughly analyzed or is
       poorly understood;  it may be subject to considerable change;
       it may never be a candidate for the formal standards track;
       and it may be discarded in favor of some other proposal.
       Any TS that is not an immediate candidate for Internet
       standardization is appropriate for publication as Experimental.
       Interested parties are thereby given the opportunity to gain
       experience with implementations and to report their findings to
       the community of interest, but the specification is explicitly
       not recommended for general production use.
    3.3.3. Informational
       An "Informational" specification is published for the general
       information of the Internet community, and does not represent
       an Internet community consensus or recommendation.
       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 4 may be published
       as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner.  Such
       a document is not an Internet Standard in any sense.
 3.4.  Requirement Levels
    An AS may 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

IAB [Page 14] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

         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 2.5, 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
    such TSs:
    (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered 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.
    The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general
    requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in
    this section.  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.

4. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

 Many de facto and de jure standards groups other than the IAB/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

IAB [Page 15] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

      ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and CCITT, develop a variety of protocol and
      service specifications that are similar to Technical
      Specifications (see glossary in Appendix A).  These
      specifications are generally de jure standards.  Similarly,
      national and international groups publish "implementors'
      agreements" that are analogous to Applicability Statements,
      capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned
      with the practical application of their standards.
 (2)  Vendor Specifications
      A vendor-specific specification that has come to be widely used
      in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as a de
      facto "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.  There are,
 however, 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.  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.
      For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference
      the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [7].
 (b)  Incorporation of a Vendor Specification
      Vendor-proprietary specifications may also be incorporated, by
      reference to a specific version of the vendor standard.  If the
      vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily
      available, the IAB may request that it be published as an
      Informational RFC.
      In order for a vendor-proprietary specification to be
      incorporated within the Internet standards process, the
      proprietor must agree in writing to the IAB that "right to use"
      licenses will be available on a non-discriminatory basis and at

IAB [Page 16] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

      a reasonable cost.  See also Sections 5 and 6.
      In addition, the IAB/IETF will generally not favor a particular
      vendor's proprietary specification over the technically
      equivalent and competing specifications of other vendors by
      making it "required" or "recommended".
 (c)  Assumption
      An IETF Working Group may start with a vendor's (or other
      body's) voluntarily contributed specification, and independently
      evolve the specification into a TS or AS.  Here "independently"
      means that the IETF work is not constrained by conditions
      imposed by the owner of the original specification;  however,
      the continued participation of the original owner in the IETF
      work is likely to be valuable, and is encouraged.  The IAB must
      receive a formal delegation of responsibility from the original
      owner that gives the IAB/IETF responsibility for evolution of
      the specification.
 As provided by section 3.1.2, an AS that specifies how an external
 technical specification should be applied in the Internet,
 incorporating the external specification by reference, may become an
 Internet Standard.

5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

 Prior to the approval of a specification as a Proposed Standard, all
 interested parties are required to disclose to the IAB the existence
 of any intellectual property right claims known to them that might
 apply to any aspect of the Proposed Standard.
 This requirement refers specifically to disclosure of the *existence*
 of a current or anticipated claim of an intellectual property right,
 not the details of the asserted right itself.

6. PATENT POLICY

 This section is tentative, subject to legal review.
 There is no objection in principle to drafting an Internet Standard
 in terms that include an item or items subject to patent rights that
 may have been asserted in one or more countries, if it is considered
 that technical reasons justify this approach.  In such cases the
 procedure described in this section shall be followed.

IAB [Page 17] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

 6.1 Statement from Patent Holder
    Prior to approval of the specification as a Proposed Standard, the
    IAB shall receive from the known patent holders, in a form
    acceptable to and approved by the IAB, either (a) assurance in the
    form of a general disclaimer to the effect that the patent holder
    does not hold and does not anticipate holding any right that would
    be violated as a consequence of conformance to the standard, or
    (b) assurance that
    (1)  a license will be made available without compensation to all
         applicants desiring to utilize the patented items for the
         purpose of implementing the standard, or
    (2)  a license will be made available to applicants under
         specified reasonable terms and conditions that are, to the
         satisfaction of the IAB, demonstrably free of any unfair
         discrimination.
    The terms and conditions of any license falling under (1) or (2)
    shall be submitted to the IAB for review, together with a
    statement of the number of independent licenses, if any, that have
    accepted or indicated their acceptance of the terms and conditions
    of the license.
    In addition, the letter to the IAB must contain (c) assurance that
    the patent holder does have the right to grant the license, and
    (d) a notification of any other patent licenses that are required,
    or else the assurance that no other licenses are required.
 6.2  Record of Statement
    A record of the patent holder's statement (and a statement from
    the IAB of the basis for considering such terms and conditions to
    be free of any unfair discrimination) shall be placed and retained
    in the files of the IAB.
 6.3  Notice
    When the IAB receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth
    in section 5.1(1) or 5.1(2), the corresponding Internet Standard
    shall include a note as follows:
    "NOTE:  The user's attention is called to the possibility that
    compliance with this standard may require the use of an invention
    or work covered by patent claims.
    "By publication of this standard, no position is taken with

IAB [Page 18] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

    respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in
    connection therewith.  The patent holder has, however, filed a
    statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights, on
    reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, to
    applicants desiring to obtain such a license.  Details may be
    obtained from the IAB."
 6.4  Identifying Patents
    The IAB shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for
    which a license may be required by an Internet Standard, nor for
    conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those
    patents that are brought to its attention.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES

 This document represents the combined output of the Internet
 Activities Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group, the
 groups charged with managing the processes described in this
 document.  Major contributions to the text were made by Bob Braden,
 Vint Cerf, Lyman Chapin, Dave Crocker, and Barry Leiner.  Helpful
 comments and suggestions were made by a number of IETF members.
 [1]  Cerf, V., "The Internet Activities Board", RFC 1160, IAB, May
      1990.
 [2]  Postel, J., "IAB Official Protocol Standards", RFC 1280, IAB,
      March 1992.
 [3]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
      Communication Layers", RFC 1122, IETF, October 1989.
 [4]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
      Application and Support", RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989.
 [5]  Almquist, P., Editor, "Requirements for IP Routers", in
      preparation.
 [6]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing
      Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, BBN, October 1991.
 [7]  ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
      Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
 [8]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1060, ISI,
      March 1990.

IAB [Page 19] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

 [9]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, ISI,
      March 1992.

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

 ANSI:  American National Standards Institute
 CCITT: Consultative Committee for International Telephone and
           Telegraphy.
           A part of the UN Treaty Organization: the International
           Telecommunications Union (ITU).
 DARPA: (U.S.) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
 ISO:   International Organization for Standardization

IAB [Page 20] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

APPENDIX B: FUTURE ISSUES

 This memo resulted from an effort to document the current standards
 procedures in the Internet community.  At the time of publication,
 Sections 5 and 6 are still undergoing legal review.  In addition,
 there are important issues under consideration of how to handle
 copyrights and other issues of intellectual property.  This memo is
 being published with these matters unresolved, due to its importance.
 Pre-publication review of this document resulted in a number of
 useful suggestions from members of the Internet community, and opened
 up several new issues.  The IAB and IESG will continue to consider
 these questions and attempt to resolve these issues; the results will
 be be incorporated in future versions of this memo.
 For future reference, this appendix records the outstanding
 suggestions and issues.
 It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following
 areas should be considered.
 o    Appeals Procedure
      Should there be some formal appeals procedure for correcting
      abuses or procedural failures, at each decision point in the
      process?
 o    Tracking Procedure
      Should there 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.
 o    Rationale Documentation
      Should the procedures require written documentation of the
      rationale for the design decisions behind each specification at
      the Draft Standard and Standard levels?
 o    Application-Layer Standards
      Should there be some way to "standardize" application-layer
      protocols that are not going to become Internet Standards?
 There were suggestions for fine-tuning of the existing procedures:

IAB [Page 21] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

 o    Increase minimum time in Internet Draft directory from 2 weeks
      to 1 month.
 o    Place explicit time limit, on IESG and IAB action on suggested
      standards changes.  Limits suggested: three months.
      If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason, the
      IETF would have to be explicitly notified.
 o    Change minimum time at Draft Standard from 4 to 5 months, to
      ensure that an IETF meeting will intervene.
 o    There were differing suggestions on how to balance between early
      implementation of specifications available only as Internet
      Drafts, and ensuring that everyone is clear that such an
      Internet Draft has no official status and is subject to change
      at any time.  One suggestion was that vendors should not claim
      compliance with an Internet Draft.
 Finally, there were suggestions for improvements in the documentation
 of the standards procedures.
 o    Discuss the impact, if any, of export control laws on the
      Internet standardization process.
      It was observed that the Requirements RFCs contain "negative"
      requirement levels: MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT.  Such levels are
      not recognized in this Procedures document.
 o    Document needs to more clearly explain the criteria for choosing
      the Experimental vs. Informational category for an off-track
      specification.  Ref. sections 3.3.2, 3.3.4.
 o    Develop recommended wording for citations to Internet Drafts,
      which makes clear the provisional, unofficial nature of that
      document.
 o    Consider changing the name attached to a fully-adopted standard
      from "Standard" to some qualified term like "Full Standard".
 o    It has been suggested that the document should more strongly
      encourage the use of specifications from other standards bodies,
      with Internet-specific changes to be made only for compelling
      reasons.  Further, the justification of the compelling
      requirement would be subject to special review.

IAB [Page 22] RFC 1310 Internet Standards Process March 1992

Security Considerations

 Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo.

Author's Address

 A. Lyman Chapin
 BBN Communications Corporation
 150 Cambridge Park Drive
 Cambridge, MA  02140
 Phone: 617-873-3133
 Fax:   617-873-4086
 Email: Lyman@BBN.COM

IAB [Page 23]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1310.txt · Last modified: 1992/03/13 23:59 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki