GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7127

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

                                                          January 2014
               Characterization of Proposed Standards

Abstract

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

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the Internet
 Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on BCPs is
 available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014

Table of Contents

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

1. Introduction

 In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026], the IETF
 has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs, and thus
 Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 no longer accurately describes IETF
 Proposed Standards.
 This document only updates the characterization of Proposed Standards
 from Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 and does not speak to or alter the
 procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from RFC
 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410].  For complete understanding of the
 requirements for standardization, those documents should be read in
 conjunction with this document.

2. IETF Review of Proposed Standards

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

Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014

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

3. Characterization of Specifications

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

3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications

 The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
 Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
 specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
 level.
 A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
 design choices, has received significant community review, and
 appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
 Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
 required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
 Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
 usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
 designation.
 The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
 prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
 materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
 behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
 Internet.
 A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
 respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
 of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
 However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
 be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
 when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
 at scale is gathered.

Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014

3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards

 A specification for which significant implementation and successful
 operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
 Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
 referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
 technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
 community.

4. Further Considerations

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

5. Security Considerations

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

6. Normative References

 [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
            3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
            Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
            October 2011.

Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

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

Authors' Addresses

 Olaf Kolkman
 Stichting NLnet Labs
 Science Park 400
 Amsterdam  1098 XH
 The Netherlands
 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
 URI:   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
 Scott O. Bradner
 Harvard University Information Technology
 Innovation and Architecture
 8 Story St., Room 5014
 Cambridge, MA  02138
 United States of America
 Phone: +1 617 495 3864
 EMail: sob@harvard.edu
 URI:   http://www.harvard.edu/huit
 Sean Turner
 IECA, Inc.
 EMail: turners@ieca.com

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

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7127.txt · Last modified: 2014/01/29 17:20 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki