Specification Required Sub-Policies
draft-nottingham-ianabis-spec-reqd-00

Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                              15 June 2026
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 17 December 2026

                  Specification Required Sub-Policies
                 draft-nottingham-ianabis-spec-reqd-00

Abstract

   This document defines sub-policies that refine the Specification
   Required registry policy in RFC 8126.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-ianabis-spec-reqd/.

   information can be found at https://mnot.github.io/I-D/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/spec-reqd.

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 https://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 17 December 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     Specification Required Sub-Policies         June 2026

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Specification Required Sub-Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Specification Required (Standards)  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Specification Required (Community)  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Specification Required (Permissive) . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis] currently defines
   Specification Required as:

      For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
      designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
      their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
      available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
      interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
      This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
      requirement of a formal public specification.  In addition to the
      normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review
      the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently
      stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound
      to allow interoperable implementations.

      The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a
      document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable
      long after IANA assignment of the requested value.  Publication of
      an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but
      Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a
      document published outside of the RFC path, including informal
      documentation.

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     Specification Required Sub-Policies         June 2026

   Section 4.6.1 of [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis] goes on to enumerate
   common issues encountered in use of Specification Required, including
   use of Internet-Drafts as the citation, purchase-only specifications,
   and citing non-IETF standards.

   While this text offers improved clarity over the currently in-force
   guidance, it does not address specifications that are defined outside
   formal standards processes.  In some registries, it is increasingly
   common for registration requests to come from Open Source projects,
   community groups and non-profits, and motivated individuals.

   At the same time, "permanent and readily available" is now arguably
   achievable for even the most ephemeral resource, thanks to cheap
   perpetual Web hosting (e.g., on GitHub) and archiving services (such
   as archive.org).

   Section 2 suggests sub-policies of the Specification Required policy,
   with the aim of clarifying these situations.

   For a sub-policy to take effect, a given registry would need to opt
   into its use; note that there is no default, as existing registries
   may have already established relevant practices.  Future revisions of
   this document might explore the mechanics of how a registry adopts a
   sub-policy (e.g., whether a revision of the registry specification is
   necessary, vs. an IESG or Expert declaration).

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Specification Required Sub-Policies

2.1.  Specification Required (Standards)

   The "Standards" sub-policy of Specification Required adds a
   requirement that the cited specification(s) MUST be under the control
   of and published by an organization listed in the "IESG-Recognized
   Standards-Related Organizations" registry described in Section 3 of
   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis].

   This sub-policy explicitly precludes registrations using Internet-
   Drafts as the basis of a registration.  However, IETF efforts are
   still eligible for early allocation, per
   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis].

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     Specification Required Sub-Policies         June 2026

   Likewise, specifications from recognized organizations do not qualify
   for registration until they have completed the relevant processes
   there.  However, preliminary and in-progress specifications might
   qualify for early allocation, per [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis].

   Organizations that appear in the "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related
   Organizations" registry are assumed to have met the "permanent and
   readily available" requirement for the purposes of this sub-policy,
   even if they charge for access to the specification.  However, such
   organizations MUST provide a free copy to the Expert(s) for review.

2.2.  Specification Required (Community)

   The "Community" sub-policy of Specification Required adds a
   requirement that the cited specification(s) MUST either qualify under
   the Standards sub-policy (Section 2.1), or in the opinion of the
   Expert(s) be the product of a significant community effort.

   The Expert(s) SHOULD take the following factors into consideration
   when determining whether a specification is the product of a
   significant community effort:

   *  The specification is well-defined and complete

   *  The specification is freely available at a stable location

   *  The specification is not tied to or heavily associated with one
      implementation

   *  The use case addressed by the specification is using the
      registry's extension point appropriately

   *  The requested value is appropriate to the use case, and not so
      generic that it may be considered 'squatting'

   *  There are multiple interoperable implementations of the
      specification, or such implementations are likely to emerge

   *  There is evidence of broad adoption

   *  There is no likely conflict with IETF work or known work at other
      recognized SDOs (present or future)

   The Expert(s) have discretion in applying these criteria; in some
   cases, they might judge it best to register an entry that fails one
   or more.  The intent is to assure that successfully deployed
   community efforts have registered code points.  As such, the criteria
   above are designed to preclude anticipatory registrations.

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     Specification Required Sub-Policies         June 2026

   In addition, the Expert(s) MAY define additional guidance and
   criteria for managing the name space of the registry (e.g., to avoid
   "squatting" on code points that are likely to be standardized).

   Specifications whose registration is deemed to be the product of a
   significant community effort are not eligible for early allocation.

2.3.  Specification Required (Permissive)

   The "Permissive" sub-policy of Specification Required explicitly
   allows registration of any specification, regardless of who publishes
   it, that meets the "permanent and readily available" requirement set
   by Section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis].  This includes but
   is not limited to:

   *  Archived Internet-Drafts

   *  GitHub repositories and similar data stores

   *  Personal Web sites

   *  Publicly available archive services

   The Expert(s) MAY define additional guidance and criteria for
   managing the name space of the registry (e.g., to avoid "squatting"
   on code points that are likely to be standardized).

   When this sub-policy is in effect, only registrations that qualify
   under the Standards sub-policy (Section 2.1) are eligible for early
   allocation.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no direct tasks for IANA, but will need to be
   operationalised by them.

4.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis] apply.

5.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis]
              Baber, A. and S. Tanamal, "Early IANA Code Point
              Allocation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              ianabis-rfc7120bis-01, 12 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ianabis-
              rfc7120bis-01>.

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     Specification Required Sub-Policies         June 2026

   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis]
              Baber, A. and S. Tanamal, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
              Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-01, 21
              February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-01>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Melbourne
   Australia
   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://mnot.net/

Nottingham              Expires 17 December 2026                [Page 6]