Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents
draft-klensin-norm-ref-04
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type | RFC Internet-Draft (individual in gen area) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sam Hartman , Dr. John C. Klensin | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2007-03-28) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4897 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Russ Housley | ||
| Send notices to | klensin@jck.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu |
draft-klensin-norm-ref-04
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Internet-Draft
Updates: 3967 (if approved) S. Hartman
Expires: September 27, 2007 MIT
March 26, 2007
Handling Normative References to Standards Track Documents
draft-klensin-norm-ref-04.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The IETF and RFC Editor have a long-standing rule that a document at
a given maturity level cannot be published until all documents it
references as normative are at that maturity level or higher. This
rule has sometimes resulted in very long publication delays for
documents and some claims that it was a major obstruction to
advancing documents in maturity level. The IETF agreed to a way to
bypass this rule with RFC 3967. This document describes a simpler
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
procedure for downward references to Standards track and BCP
documents, namely "note and move on". The procedure in RFC 3967
still applies for downward references to other classes of document.
In both cases, annotations should be added to such References.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Normative Reference Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG . . . . . . 4
3.2. Documents Already in RFC Editor Queue . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Target Documents not on the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Changes for version -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
1. Introduction
The IETF and RFC Editor have a long-standing rule (see, e.g., RFC
2026, Section 4.2.4 [RFC2026] and the extended discussion in RFC 3967
[RFC3967]) that a document at a given maturity level cannot be
published until all documents it references as normative are at that
maturity level or higher. This rule has sometimes resulted in very
long publication delays for documents and some claims that it was a
major obstruction to advancing documents in maturity level.
Recognizing the problems that this rule sometimes caused, RFC 3967
established an exception procedure for normative downward references
under some specific circumstances. Perhaps because of its fairly
stringent requirements, RFC 3967 has not proven adequate either to
clear the backlog of documents awaiting upgraded documents or to
prevent additional documents from joining that queue.
This document replaces the long-standing rule for downward references
to standards-track documents (including BCPs) that are already
published. While downward references to, e.g., Internet Drafts, are
theoretically possible, they are not contemplated here.
This document replaces the "hold on normative reference" rule with a
"note downward normative reference and move on" approach for
normative references to standards-track documents and BCPs.
This document also updates RFC 3967 to encourage downward references
approved through that procedure to be noted in the same way as
references approved under this rule.
2. Terminology
A reference involves two documents, the one in which the reference is
embedded and the document referenced. Where needed for clarity,
these documents are referred to as the "source document" and "target
document" respectively.
The term "standards track document", as used in this specification,
is assumed to include BCPs but not Informational or Experimental
documents of any variety or origin.
3. Normative Reference Rule
This document specifies a alternative to holding source documents
until all target documents referenced normatively are upgraded or by
applying the procedure of RFC 3967.
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG
An author or editor who requires a normative downward reference to a
standards-track RFC uses the following very simple procedure:
o The reference text (i.e., in the "Normative References" section of
the source document) is written as usual.
o A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the
reference is to a target document of a lower maturity level, that
some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the
document from which it is being referenced, and, optionally,
explaining why the downward reference is appropriate.
The IESG may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used,
establish procedures regarding the text to use, or give guidance on
this text. When establishing procedures the IESG should seek
appropriate community review.
These annotations are part of the source document. If members of the
community consider either the downward reference or the annotation
text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised at any time in
the document life cycle, just as with any other text in the document.
There is no separate review on these references.
With appropriate community review, the IESG may establish procedures
for when normative downward references should delay a document and
when downward references should be noted. Absent specific guidance,
authors and reviewers should use their best judgment. It is assumed
that in a significant majority of cases, noting a downward reference
is preferable to delaying publication.
At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached to non-
normative references.
3.2. Documents Already in RFC Editor Queue
The IESG may, at its discretion, specify a procedure to be applied to
source documents that are already in the RFC Editor queue, awaiting
target referenced documents. The IESG should encourage authors with
documents in the rfc-editor queue awaiting downward references to
standards-track RFCs to evaluate whether this new rule is appropriate
for their documents. If authors believe that adding an annotation
and releasing the documents is the best way forward, then the IESG
should insure that appropriate review is conducted and if that review
agrees with the authors allow the annotations to be added. The IESG
will announce its decision via the normal Protocol-Action or
Document-Action mechanisms.
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
4. Target Documents not on the Standards Track
In the case of a normative reference to a document not on the
standards track that is approved under the procedures defined in RFC
3967, the annotation described in section 3.1, or the retrospective
annotation described in section 3.2, SHOULD be added to the reference
unless the IESG, after consideration of Last Call input, concludes it
is inappropriate.
5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way
The "downward reference by annotation" model specified here is
applicable only to published standards track RFCs at lower maturity
levels.
Obviously such downward references are part of the relevant source
document at IETF Last Call and subject to comments from the
community.
Advancing documents, when appropriate, is still considered preferable
to the use of either this procedure or the one specified in RFC 3967.
This specification does not impose a specific test or requirement to
determine appropriateness, partially because it would be impossible
to do so for the general case, but the intention is to permit the
IESG and the community to balance the importance of getting a source
document published against the time and difficulty associated with
upgrading a target document. That requirement is intended to be less
stringent than the one of RFC 3967.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies an IETF procedure. It is not believed to
raise any security issues although, in principle, relaxing the
normative downward reference rules for references associated with
security mechanisms could make a specification less stable and hence
less secure.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions by the IANA.
8. Acknowledgments
This proposal was suggested by a comment by Spencer Dawkins and many
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
complaints about the negative impact of the current rules. The
author is unsure about the validity of some of those complaints; the
proposal is, in part, a way to test the validity question. Spencer
also provided helpful comments on a preliminary draft. It was
revised in response to extensive discussion in the IESG and benefited
significantly by comments by Brian Carpenter.
9. Changes for version -02
The proposal has been significantly trimmed based on discussion with
the IESG during and after Last Call. In particular, the provisions
for downward references to approved, but unpublished, Internet-Drafts
and for references to Informational documents have been removed and
the proposal targeted at BCP rather than experimental status. The
revised procedure applies only to published standards-track documents
at a lower maturity level.
Some editorial corrections have also been made to improve clarity.
10. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower
Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
Sam Hartman
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02139
USA
Email: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Normative References March 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Klensin & Hartman Expires September 27, 2007 [Page 8]