GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1602

Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board and Request for Comments: 1602 Internet Engineering Steering Group Obsoletes: 1310 March 1994 Category: Informational

            The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2

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 1310, which defined the official
 procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards.
 This revision (revision 2) includes the following major changes:
 (a)  The new management structure arising from the POISED Working
      Group is reflected.  These changes were agreed to by the IETF
      plenary and by the IAB and IESG in November 1992 and accepted by
      the ISOC Board of Trustees at their December 1992 meeting.
 (b)  Prototype status is added to the non-standards track maturity
      levels (Section 2.4.1).
 (c)  The Intellectual Property Rights section is completely revised,
      in accordance with legal advice.  Section 5 of this document
      replaces Sections 5 and 6 of RFC-1310.  The new section 5 has
      been reviewed by legal counsel to the Internet Society.

IAB - IESG [Page 1] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

 (d)  An appeals procedure is added (Section 3.6).
 (e)  The wording of sections 1 and 1.2 has been changed to clarify
      the relationships that exist between the Internet Society and
      the IAB, the IESG, the IETF, and the Internet Standards process.
 (f)  An Appendix B has been added, listing the contact points for the
      RFC editor, the IANA, the IESG, the IAB and the ISOC. The
      "future issues" are now listed in Appendix C.

IAB - IESG [Page 2] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................  3
    1.1  Internet Standards. ......................................  4
    1.2  Organizations ............................................  6
    1.3  Standards-Related Publications ...........................  8
    1.4  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................ 10
 2.  NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 11
    2.1  The Internet Standards Track ............................. 11
    2.2  Types of Specifications .................................. 12
    2.3  Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 13
    2.4  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 15
    2.5  Requirement Levels ....................................... 17
 3.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ............................... 19
    3.1  Review and Approval ...................................... 19
    3.2  Entering the Standards Track ............................. 20
    3.3  Advancing in the Standards Track ......................... 21
    3.4  Revising a Standard ...................................... 22
    3.5  Retiring a Standard ...................................... 22
    3.6  Conflict Resolution and Appeals .......................... 23
 4.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 24
 5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 26
    5.1.  General Policy .......................................... 26
    5.2.  Definitions ............................................. 26
    5.3  Trade Secret Rights ...................................... 27
    5.4.  Rights and Permissions .................................. 27
    5.5.  Notices ................................................. 30
    5.6.  Assurances .............................................. 31
 6.  REFERENCES ................................................... 34
 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................. 35
 APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS ....................................... 35
 APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES ........................................ 36
 Security Considerations .......................................... 37
 Authors' Addresses ............................................... 37

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.

IAB - IESG [Page 3] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

 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.
    The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
    open and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to
    be flexible.

IAB - IESG [Page 4] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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
    places an urgency on timely development of standards.  The
    Internet standardization rules described here are intended to
    balance these conflicting goals.  The process is believed to be as
    short and simple as possible without undue sacrifice of technical
    competence, prior testing, or openness and fairness.
    In summary, the goals for the Internet standards process are:
  • technical excellence;
  • prior implementation and testing;
  • clear, short, and easily understandable documentation;
  • openness and fairness; and
  • timeliness.
    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

IAB - IESG [Page 5] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.
    From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to
    remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
    requirements and technology into its design and implementation.
    Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software,
    and services that support it should anticipate and embrace this
    evolution 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 improving these
    procedures.
    The remainder of this section describes the organizations and
    publications involved in Internet standardization.  Section 2
    presents the nomenclature for different kinds and levels of
    Internet standard technical specifications and their
    applicability.  Section 3 describes the process and rules for
    Internet standardization.  Section 4 defines how relevant
    externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and
    controlled by other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled in
    the Internet standardization process.  Section 5 presents the
    rules that are required to protect intellectual property rights
    and to assure unrestricted ability for all interested parties to
    practice Internet Standards.
 1.2  Organizations
    The following organizations are involved in the Internet standards
    process.
  • IETF
         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

IAB - IESG [Page 6] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

         engaged in the development of new Internet Standard
         specifications, although it is not itself a part of the
         Internet Society.  The IETF is composed of individual Working
         Groups, which are grouped into Areas, each of which is
         coordinated by one or more Area Directors.  Nominations to
         the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering
         Steering Group are made by a nominating committee selected at
         random from the ranks of regular IETF meeting attendees who
         have volunteered to serve as nominating committee members.
  • ISOC
         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 ISOC Board of Trustees is
         responsible for approving appointments to the Internet
         Architecture Board from among the nominees submitted by the
         IETF nominating committee.
  • IESG
         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 given in this document, which have been
         accepted and ratified by the Internet Society Trustees.  The
         IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with
         entry into and movement along the "standards track", as
         described in section 3 of this document, including final
         approval of specifications as Internet Standards.  The IESG
         is composed of the IETF Area Directors and the chairperson of
         the IETF, who also serves as the chairperson of the IESG.
  • IAB
         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 3.6 of this document).  The IAB is responsible for

IAB - IESG [Page 7] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

         approving appointments to the IESG from among the nominees
         submitted by the IETF nominating committee.
    Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is
    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 email alone; furthermore,
    Internet video conferencing is being used experimentally to allow
    remote participation.  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;
    IETF participants recognize that the greatest benefit for all
    members of the Internet community results from cooperative
    development of technically superior protocols and services.
    Members of the IESG and IAB are nominated for two-year terms by a
    committee that is drawn from the roll of recent participation in
    the IETF and chartered by the ISOC Board of Trustees.  The
    appointment of IESG and of IAB members are made from these
    nominations by the IAB and by the ISOC Board of Trustees,
    respectively.
    The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) is not directly part of
    the 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.
 1.3  Standards-Related Publications
    1.3.1  Requests for Comments (RFCs)
       Each distinct version of a 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 are available for
       anonymous FTP from a number of Internet hosts.
       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

IAB - IESG [Page 8] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       to status memos about the Internet.  RFC publication is the
       direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general
       direction of the IAB.
       The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in
       reference [5].  Every RFC is available in ASCII text, but some
       RFCs are also available in PostScript.  The PostScript 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 3.1.3 below.
       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 "STDxxxx", 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.  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 and the
       IESG.  These RFCs will be marked "Prototype", "Experimental" or
       "Informational" as appropriate (see section 2.3).
  • * * It is important to remember that not all RFCs * * are standards track documents, and that not all * * standards track documents reach the level of * * Internet Standard. * IAB - IESG [Page 9] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994 1.3.2 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 Draft 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, are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet activity, 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.
 1.4  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" [3].

IAB - IESG [Page 10] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.  Note that assignment of a
    number to a protocol is independent of, and does not imply,
    acceptance of that protocol as a standard.
    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 to guess the next unassigned value of a
    parameter; both are hazardous.
    The IANA is expected 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.

2. NOMENCLATURE

 2.1  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.

IAB - IESG [Page 11] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

 2.2  Types of Specifications
    Specifications subject to the Internet standardization process
    fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and
    Applicability Statements (AS).
    2.2.1  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, is
       defined by an Applicability Statement.
    2.2.2  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

IAB - IESG [Page 12] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       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 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 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 "Prototype", "Experimental", or "Historic" (see
       section 2.4).
    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.
 2.3  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.
    2.3.1  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.  However, further experience might result in a change
       or even retraction of the specification before it advances.

IAB - IESG [Page 13] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       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 or
       Prototype status (see below), 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 recommend that this requirement be explicitly reduced
       in order to allow a protocol to advance into the Proposed
       Standard state, when a specification is considered to be useful
       and necessary (and timely), even absent the missing features.
       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
       normally advisable.
    2.3.2  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.
       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

IAB - IESG [Page 14] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale
       use in production environments.
    2.3.3  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.
       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.
 2.4  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.
    Specifications not on the standards track are labeled with one of
    four off-track maturity levels: "Prototype, "Experimental",
    "Informational", and "Historic".  There are no time limits
    associated with these non-standard track labels, and the documents
    bearing these labels are not Internet standards in any sense.  As
    the Internet grows, there is a growing amount of credible
    technical work being submitted directly to the RFC Editor without
    having been gone through the IETF.  It is possible that such
    outside submissions may overlap or even conflict with ongoing IETF
    activities.  In order for the best technical result to emerge for
    the community, we believe that the such outside submissions should
    be given the opportunity to work within IETF to gain the broadest
    possible consensus.
    It is also possible that supporters of a view different from the
    IETF may wish to publish their divergent view.  For this reason,
    it is important that, ultimately, authors should have the
    opportunity to publish Informational and Experimental RFCs should

IAB - IESG [Page 15] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    they wish to.  However, it is also possible that this could open a
    loophole in which developers could try to bypass the IETF
    consensus process completely by publishing an Informational RFC
    (and relying on the prestige of the RFC series to gain community
    support for their document).
    For all these reasons, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed to
    the following policy for publishing Info and Exp RFCs:
    1.   The RFC Editor will bring to the attention of the IESG all
         Informational and Experimental submissions that the RFC
         Editor feels may be related to, or of interest to, the IETF
         community.
    2.   The IESG will review all such referrals within a fixed length
         of time and make a recommendation on whether to publish, or
         to suggest that the author bring their work within the IETF.
    3.   If the IESG recommends that the work be brought within the
         IETF, but the author declines the invitation, the IESG may
         add disclaimer text into the standard boilerplate material
         added by the RFC Editor (e.g., "Status of this memo").
         2.4.1  Prototype
            For new protocols which affect core services of the
            Internet or for which the interactions with existing
            protocols are too complex to fully assimilate from the
            written specification, the IESG may request that
            operational experience be obtained prior to advancement to
            Proposed Standard status.  In these cases, the IESG will
            designate an otherwise complete specification as
            "Prototype". This status permits it to be published as an
            RFC before it is entered onto the standards track.  In
            this respect, "Prototype" is similar to "Experimental",
            except that it indicates the protocol is specifically
            being developed to become a standard, while "Experimental"
            generally indicates a more exploratory phase of
            development.
         2.4.2  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

IAB - IESG [Page 16] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

            archival record of the work.  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.
            Documents intended for Experimental status should be
            submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication.  The
            procedure is intended to expedite the publication of any
            responsible Experimental specification, subject only to
            editorial considerations, and to verification that there
            has been adequate coordination with the standards process.
         2.4.3  Informational
            An "Informational" specification is published for the
            general information of the Internet community, and does
            not represent an Internet community consensus or
            recommendation.  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.
            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.
         2.4.4  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.)
      2.5  Requirement Levels
         An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to
         each of the TSs to which it refers:

IAB - IESG [Page 17] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    (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 2.4, 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 "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.

IAB - IESG [Page 18] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

 3.1  Review and Approval
    A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
    advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track --
    must be approved by the IESG.
    3.1.1  Initiation of Action
       Typically, a standards action is initiated by a recommendation
       to the appropriate IETF Area Director by the individual or
       group that is responsible for the specification, usually an
       IETF Working Group.
       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 with a recommendation for action.
    3.1.2  IESG Review and Approval
       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).
       The IESG shall determine if an independent technical review of
       the specification is required, and shall commission one when
       necessary.  This may require creating a new Working Group, or
       an existing group may agree to take responsibility for
       reviewing the specification.  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 an independent technical 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.
       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.  In addition, for important specifications there

IAB - IESG [Page 19] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       shall 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.
       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 on whether or not to approve
       the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision
       via email.
    3.1.3  Publication
       Following IESG 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.
       An official summary of standards actions completed and pending
       shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter.
       This shall constitute the "journal 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, which is distributed to all
       members of the IETF mailing list.
       Finally, the IAB shall publish quarterly an "Internet Official
       Protocol Standards" RFC, summarizing the status of all Internet
       protocol and service specifications, both within and outside
       the standards track.
 3.2  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

IAB - IESG [Page 20] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.
 3.3  Advancing in 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, or until at least one IETF meeting has
    occurred, whichever comes later.
    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.

IAB - IESG [Page 21] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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 status 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 via electronic mail to the IETF mailing
    list, 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.
 3.4  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 2.2.2).
 3.5  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

IAB - IESG [Page 22] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.
 3.6  Conflict Resolution and Appeals
    IETF Working Groups are generally able to reach consensus, which
    sometimes requires difficult compromises between differing
    technical solutions.  However, there are times when even
    reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.  To
    achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be
    resolved with a process of open review and discussion.
    Participants in a Working Group may disagree with Working Group
    decisions, based either upon the belief that their own views are
    not being adequately considered or the belief that the Working
    Group made a technical choice which essentially will not work.
    The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process, and
    the latter is an assertion of technical error.  These two kinds of
    disagreements may have different kinds of final outcome, but the
    resolution process is the same for both cases.
    Working Group participants always should first attempt to discuss
    their concerns with the Working Group chair.  If this proves
    unsatisfactory, they should raise their concerns with an IESG Area
    Director or other IESG member.  In most cases, issues raised to
    the level of the IESG will receive consideration by the entire
    IESG, with the relevant Area Director or the IETF Chair being
    tasked with communicating results of the discussion.
    For the general community as well as Working Group participants
    seeking a larger audience for their concerns, there are two
    opportunities for explicit comment.  (1) When appropriate, a
    specification that is being suggested for advancement along the
    standards track will be presented during an IETF plenary.  At that
    time, IETF participants may choose to raise issues with the
    plenary or to pursue their issues privately, with any of the
    relevant IETF/IESG management personnel.  (2) Specifications that
    are to be considered by the IESG are publicly announced to the
    IETF mailing list, with a request for comments.
    Finally, if a problem persists, the IAB may be asked to adjudicate
    the dispute.

IAB - IESG [Page 23] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

  • If a concern involves questions of adequate Working Group

discussion, the IAB will attempt to determine the actual

         nature and extent of discussion that took place within the
         Working Group, based upon the Working Group's written record
         and upon comments of other Working Group participants.
  • If a concern involves questions of technical adequacy, the

IAB may convene an appropriate review panel, which may then

         recommend that the IESG and Working Group re-consider an
         alternate technical choice.
  • If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical

approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working

         Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
         Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
         Working Group.  The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points
         of view and the development of technical options, allowing
         the general Internet community to show preference by making
         its own choices, rather than by having legislated decisions.

4. 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.

IAB - IESG [Page 24] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

 (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.  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" [2].  Whenever possible,
      the referenced specification shall be made 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 5 below, and in general the
      specification shall be made available online.
      The IESG shall not favor a particular vendor's proprietary
      specification over the technically equivalent and competing
      specifications of other vendors by making it "required" or
      "recommended".

IAB - IESG [Page 25] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

 (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 5 below, and (2)
      change control has been conveyed to IETF by the original
      developer of the specification.  Continued participation in the
      IETF work by the original owner is likely to be valuable, and is
      encouraged.
 The following sample text illustrates how a vendor might convey
 change control to the Internet Society:
      "XXXX Organization asserts that it has the right to transfer to
      the Internet Society responsibility for further evolution of the
      YYYY protocol documented in References (1-n) below.  XXXX
      Organization hereby transfers to the Internet Society
      responsibility for all future modification and development of
      the YYYY protocol, without reservation or condition."

5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

 5.1.  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.
 5.2.  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.

IAB - IESG [Page 26] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.
 5.3  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.
 5.4.  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.

IAB - IESG [Page 27] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    5.4.1.  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 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

IAB - IESG [Page 28] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

       contribution as provided herein.  Except as provided below, the
       Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat, or a person
       designated by the Executive Director, will 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 will be assumed by the Editor or Chair 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 will then determine
       whether to list the person as a principal contributor, or to
       revise the document to omit the particular contribution in
       question.
    5.4.2. Standards Track Documents
       (A)  ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any
            standards, including but not limited to standards labelled
            Proposed, Draft or Internet Standards, which can only be
            practiced 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

IAB - IESG [Page 29] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

                 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.  Further, ISOC will 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 will make its rights available under
            license to anyone in the Internet community in accordance
            with the written assurances set forth below.
 5.5.  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 Secretariat.   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

IAB - IESG [Page 30] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

         pertaining to Internet Standards.  For this purpose, each
         standards document will 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 will 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 will 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.
 5.6.  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:

IAB - IESG [Page 31] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

         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,

IAB - IESG [Page 32] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

    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.

IAB - IESG [Page 33] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

         This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC to
    propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or any
    other standard.

6. REFERENCES

 [1]  Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, RFC
      1600, 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, RFC
      1340, 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.

IAB - IESG [Page 34] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

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-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International

       Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization;
       ITU-T 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 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

To contact the RFC Editor, send an email message to: "rfc- editor@isi.edu".

To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword or parameter assignment send an email message to: "iana@isi.edu".

To contact the IESG, send an email message to: "iesg@cnri.reston.va.us".

To contact the IAB, send an email message to: "iab-contact@isi.edu".

To contact the Executive Director of the ISOC, send an email message to "amr@isoc.org".

IAB - IESG [Page 35] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

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 4 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.

IAB - IESG [Page 36] RFC 1602 Internet Standards Process March 1994

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
   3.1.2.  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

 Christian Huitema, IAB Chairman
 INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
 2004 Route des Lucioles
 BP 109
 F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
 France
 Phone:  +33 93 65 77 15
 EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR
 Phill Gross, IESG Chairman
 Director of Broadband Engineering
 MCI Data Services Division
 2100 Reston Parkway, Room 6001
 Reston, VA 22091
 Phone: +1 703 715 7432
 Fax: +1 703 715 7436
 EMail: 0006423401@mcimail.com

IAB - IESG [Page 37]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1602.txt · Last modified: 1994/03/23 01:27 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki