Characterization of Proposed Standards
draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual in gen area) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Olaf Kolkman , Scott O. Bradner , Sean Turner | ||
| Last updated | 2013-09-02 (Latest revision 2013-08-01) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-03)
Ready with Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | AD is watching | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | olaf@nlnetlabs.nl, sob@harvard.edu, turners@ieca.com, draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified@tools.ietf.org |
draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00
Network Working Group O. Kolkman
Internet-Draft NLnet Labs
Intended status: Informational S. Bradner
Expires: February 01, 2014 Harvard University
Turner
IECA, Inc.
August 02, 2013
Characterization of Proposed Standards
draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00
Abstract
This document clarifies the description of the review performed on
and the maturity level of IETF Proposed Standard RFCs.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 01, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Characterization of Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Kolkman, Bradner & TurnExpires February 01, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Proposed Standard August 2013
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 2
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix B. Internet Draft Editing History . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix B.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix B.2. Editors versioning info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
[Editor Note: ietf@ietf.org is the mailing-list for discussing this
draft.]
In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026] the IESG
has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs and thus
RFC 2026 section 4.1.1 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed
Standards.
This document updates the characterization of Proposed Standards but
does not speak to or alter the standard maintenance procedures from
RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410].
2. IESG Reveiew 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 assumed 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 RFC 2026 section 6). Over time, for a
number of reasons, this progression became less common. In response,
the IESG strengthened its review of Proposed Standards, basically
operating as if the Proposed Standard was the last chance for the
IESG to ensure the quality of the technology and the clarity of the
standards document. The result was that IETF Proposed Standards
approved over the last decade or more have had extensive review.
Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards
should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from
other standards development organizations. In fact, the IETF review
is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area
technical review performed by the IESG.
3. Characterization of Specification
Section 3.1 updates RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1. Section 3.2 is a verbatim
copy of the characterization of Internet Standards from RFC 2026
Section 4.1.3.
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
Kolkman, Bradner & TurnExpires February 01, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Proposed Standard August 2013
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, is well-understood, has received significant
community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to
be considered valuable. However, as with all technical standards,
further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the
specification in the future.
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.
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards
An Internet 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. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
5. IANA Considerations
There are no actions for IANA.
6. References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Kolkman, Bradner & TurnExpires February 01, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Proposed Standard August 2013
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D. and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone
session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks for [to be
added] for motivation, input and review.
Appendix B. Internet Draft Editing History
This section is to assist reviewers of this document. It will be
removed at publication as RFC.
Appendix B.1. Version 00
Introduction and motivation
Verbatim copy from section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 of [RFC2026] of the
Proposed and ant Internet Draft characterization into Section 3.1 and
Section 3.2
Modification of paragraphs of the Proposed Standards
characterization, namely:
OLD:
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.
NEW:
A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
design choices, is well-understood, has received significant
community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to
be considered valuable. However, as with all technical standards,
further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the
specification in the future.
OLD:
A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may
waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance
to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.
Kolkman, Bradner & TurnExpires February 01, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Proposed Standard August 2013
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
environment is not recommended.
NEW:
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.
Appendix B.2. Editors versioning info
$Id: draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.xml 4 2013-08-02
04:42:37Z olaf $
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
1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
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, Bradner & TurnExpires February 01, 2014 [Page 5]