The Internet Standards Process
draft-rsalz-2026bis-12
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rich Salz , Scott O. Bradner | ||
| Last updated | 2024-10-10 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-rsalz-2026bis-12
xxxxxxx R. Salz
Internet-Draft Akamai Technologies
Obsoletes: 2026, 6410, 7100, 7127, 8789, 9282 S. Bradner
(if approved) SOBCO
Updates: 5657, 7475 (if approved) 10 October 2024
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: 13 April 2025
The Internet Standards Process
draft-rsalz-2026bis-12
Abstract
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the
stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
document between stages and the types of documents used during this
process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and
copyright issues associated with the standards process.
This document obsoletes RFC2026, RFC6410, RFC7100, RFC7127, RFC8789,
and RFC9282. It updates RFC5657. It also includes the changes from
RFC7475, and with [bis2418], obsoletes it.
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-rsalz-2026bis/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-2026bis.
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/.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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 13 April 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. Intellectual Property Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Internet Standards-Related Publications . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Internet Standard Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Technical Specification (TS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Applicability Statement (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. The Internet Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1. Proposed Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. Internet Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.1. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.2. Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs . 17
6.2.4. Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. BCP Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Standards Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
8.1.1. Initiation of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1.2. IESG Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1.3. Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. Advancing in the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.3. Revising a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.4. Retiring a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5.1. Working Group Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.5.2. Process Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5.4. Appeals Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. External Standards and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Use of External Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications . . . . . . . . 27
9.1.3. Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Notices and Record Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Varying the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. The Variance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
NOTE: This document started with the raw text of RFC 2026, and
subsequent drafts each incorporated the text of RFC 6410, RFC
7100, RFC 7127, RFC 7475, RFC 8789, and RFC 9282. (RFC 3932 was
obsoleted by RFC 5742; RFC 3978 was obsoleted by RFC 8179; RFC
5657 became not relevant because of RFC 6410 and RFC 7127).
A final update addressed all the errata. We have submitted
this to the GENDISPATCH working group to determine the next steps.
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
(ISOC) that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet
community by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG).
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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 interconnected networks, which are not connected to the
global Internet but use the Internet Standards.
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 normally applies 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 process described here only applies to the IETF RFC stream. See
[RFC4844] for the definition of the streams and [RFC5742] for a
description of the IESG responsibilities related to those streams.
1.1. Terminology
Although this document is not an IETF Standards Track publication, it
adopts the conventions for normative language to provide clarity of
instructions to the implementer. 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.
The following terms are used throughout this document. For more
details about the organizations related to the IETF, see [RFC9281],
Section 3.
Alternate Stream The IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document Stream,
and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in
[RFC8729], Section 5.1, along with any future non-IETF streams
that might be defined.
Area Director The manager of an IETF Area.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency; an agency of the US
Department of Defense.
Contribution Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor
for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC and any
statement made within the context of an IETF activity, in each
case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process or that
is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has adopted
this policy.
Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
electronic communications, which are addressed to:
* Any IETF plenary session,
* Any IETF Working Group (WG; see [BCP25]) or portion thereof or any
WG chair on behalf of the relevant WG,
* Any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
* WG design teams (see [BCP25]) and other design teams that intend
to deliver an output to IETF, or portions thereof,
* The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
* The IAB, or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
* Any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room, or discussion board
operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the IETF
list itself,
* The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context of
this document. And while the IETF's IPR rules apply in all cases,
not all presentations represent a Contribution. For example, many
invited plenary, area-meeting, or research group presentations will
cover useful background material, such as general discussions of
existing Internet technology and products, and will not be a
Contribution. (Some such presentations can represent a Contribution
as well, of course). Throughout this document, the term "written
Contribution" is used. For purposes of this document, "written"
means reduced to a written or visual form in any language and any
media, permanent or temporary, including but not limited to
traditional documents, email messages, discussion board postings,
slide presentations, text messages, instant messages, and
transcriptions of oral statements.
Copyright The legal right granted to an author in a document or
other work of authorship under applicable law. A "copyright" is
not equivalent to a "right to copy". Rather a copyright
encompasses all of the exclusive rights that an author has in a
work, such as the rights to copy, publish, distribute and create
derivative works of the work. An author often cedes these rights
to his or her employer or other parties as a condition of
employment or compensation.
Covers A valid claim of a patent or a patent application (including
a provisional patent application) in any jurisdiction, or any
other Intellectual Property Right, would necessarily be infringed
by the exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, selling,
importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with respect to an
Implementing Technology. For purposes of this definition, "valid
claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or patent application
which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled, or disclaimed, nor
held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction in an unappealed
or unappealable decision.
IETF In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
lists, functions, and other activities that are organized or
initiated by ISOC, the IESG, or the IAB under the general
designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), but
solely to the extent of such participation.
IETF Area A management division within the IETF. An Area consists
of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An
Area is managed by one or more Area Directors.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
IETF Documents RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as part
of the IETF Standards Process. These are also referred to as
"IETF Stream Documents" as defined in [RFC8729], Section 5.1.1.
IETF Standards Process The activities undertaken by the IETF in any
of the settings described in the above definition of Contribution.
The IETF Standards Process may include participation in activities
and publication of documents that are not directed toward the
development of IETF standards or specifications, such as the
development and publication of Informational and Experimental
documents (see Section 6).
IETF Trust A trust established under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, USA, in order to hold and administer intellectual
property rights for the benefit of the IETF.
Implementing Technology A technology that implements an IETF
specification or standard.
Internet-Draft A document used in the IETF and RFC Editor processes,
as described in Section 4.
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) A group comprised of the
IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible
for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the
standards approval board for the IETF.
interoperable For the purposes of this document, "interoperable"
means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path.
IPR or Intellectual Property Rights Means a patent, utility model,
or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology,
whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof,
or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
See Section 2.1 for IPR requirements that must be met for
documents used in the Internet Standards Process.
Last-Call A public comment period used to gauge the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
See Section 8.1.2.
Participating in an IETF discussion or activity Making a
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
IETF Standards Process. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, acting as a Working Group Chair or Area Director
constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
"Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.
RFC The basic publication series for the IETF.
Working Group A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a
specific specification, set of specifications or topic.
2. The Internet Standards Process
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
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.
The goals of the Internet Standards Process are:
* Technical excellence;
* Prior implementation and testing;
* Clear, concise, and easily-understood documentation;
* Openness and fairness; and
* Timeliness
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to be
flexible.
* 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
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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.
* These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification
must be 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.
* 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
demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards
Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
or openness and fairness.
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 a number
of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
2.1. Intellectual Property Requirements
All documents used in the Internet Standards Process must meet the
conditions specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
3. Organization of This Document
Section 4 describes the publications and archives of the Internet
Standards Process. Section 5 describes the types of Internet
standard specifications. Section 6 describes the Internet standards
specifications track. Section 7 describes Best Current Practice
RFCs. Section 8 describes the process and rules for Internet
standardization. Section 9 specifies the way in which externally-
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet
Standards Process. Section 10 describes the requirements for notices
and record keeping, and Section 11 defines a variance process to
allow one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this
document.
4. Internet Standards-Related Publications
4.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs)
Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related 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 the Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of
Interenet hosts using standard Internet applications such as the WWW.
The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project. RFCs cover
a wide range of topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early
discussion of new research concepts to status memos about the
Internet. For information about RFC publication, see [RFC9280].
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in
[RFC7322]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also
available in other formats. The other versions 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.
Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'
subseries of the RFC series [RFC1311]. When a specification has been
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
"STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
(see Section 6.1.2). The status of Internet protocol and service
specifications is available from the RFC Index (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/rfc-index.txt) in the RFC repository.
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form
the specification has been adopted as a Best Current Practice (BCP) ,
it is given the additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC
number and its place in the RFC series. (see Section 7)
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see Section 6.2).
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. In the same way, not all RFCs
which describe current practices have been given
the review and approval to become BCPs. See
{{!RFC1796} for further information.
4.2. 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-Drafts 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, and are
subject to change or removal at any time.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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.
This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as
the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
the "Work in Progress".
5. Internet Standard Specifications
Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into
one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and Applicability
Statement (AS).
5.1. 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 might or might 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, are defined by an Applicability Statement.
5.2. Applicability Statement (AS)
An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular
Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 9.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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 (see
Section 5.3).
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 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 on which the AS relies (see Section 6.1).
5.3. Requirement Levels
An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each
of the TSs to which it refers:
* Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by the
AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, IP
and the Internet Control Message Protocl (ICMP) must be
implemented by all Internet systems using the TCP/IP Protocol
Suite.
* 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. For example, the TELNET
protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit
from remote access.
* 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.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
As noted in Section 6.1, 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 these TSs:
* Limited Use: The TS is considered to be 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.
* 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.
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.
6. The Internet Standards Track
Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard" and "Internet Standard"
-- are defined and discussed in Section 6.1. The way in which
specifications move along the standards track is described in
Section 8.
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 6.2 to cover these and other
specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 9.)
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
6.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels
Internet specifications 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.
6.1.1. Proposed Standard
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.
Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the IETF may occasionally
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.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
6.1.2. 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 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 specification that reaches the status of Internet Standard is
assigned a number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
6.2. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels
Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification
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 specification may have been superseded by a more recent
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels
are not Internet Standards in any sense.
6.2.1. Experimental
The "Experimental" designation 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 archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the Internet Research Task
Force) an IETF Working Group, or it may be an individual
contribution.
6.2.2. 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
(see Section 6.2.3).
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process or do not meet the legal requirements {#ipr-requirements} may
be published as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner
and the concurrence of the RFC Editor.
6.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
RFCs.
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
contribution to the Internet Standards Process.
If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.
Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using
the process described in Section 8.1.1.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
6.2.4. Historic
A specification 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.)
7. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
to perform some operations or IETF process function.
Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, 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.
While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are
composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the
technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities
themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders
in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
community's view of that issue.
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the
IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards
Process and is published as a BCP.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
7.1. BCP Review Process
Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs
are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage
standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and
immediate instantiation.
The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP
is submitted to the IESG for review, (see Section 8.1.1) and the
existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF
Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the
document, the process ends and the document is published. The
resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the
IETF.
Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must
undergo the procedures outlined in Section 8.1, and Section 8.4 of
this document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the
procedures in Section 8.5.
Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived
at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.
Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger
Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable
for a content different from Informational RFCs.
A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
retaining its RFC number(s).
8. The Internet Standards Process
The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of
the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the
standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification
from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably
objective criteria (described below and in Section 6) are available
to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,
along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee
of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any
specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG
concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for
elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential
component of the decision-making process.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
8.1. Standards Actions
A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
be approved by the IESG.
8.1.1. Initiation of Action
A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
Section 4.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.
It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less
than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
recommendation for action may be initiated.
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
the IESG.
For classification as an Internet Standard, the request for
reclassification must include an explanation of how the following
criteria have been met:
1. There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
Although not required by the IETF Standards Process, [RFC5657]
can be helpful to conduct interoperability testing.
2. There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
3. There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
increase implementation complexity.
4. If the technology required to implement the specification
requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
8.1.2. IESG Review and Approval
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it according to Section 8.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see Section 6.1 and Section 6.2), and shall
in addition determine whether or not the technical quality and
clarity of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to
consider the specification for publication in a different category
than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last-
Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.
The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based
on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
specification being published at a "higher" level than the original
Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the
IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
originating from an IETF Working Group.
In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these
determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by
the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact
on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,
at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the
specification.
The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG
consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the
general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be
via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a
Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as
directed in the Last-Call announcement.
For a Proposed Standard, the Last-Call period shall be no shorter
than two weeks except in those cases where the proposed standards
action was not initiated by an IETF Working Group, in which case the
Last-Call period shall be no shorter than four weeks. If the IESG
believes that the community interest would be served by allowing more
time for comment, it may decide on a longer Last-Call period or to
explicitly lengthen a current Last-Call period.
For an Internet Standard, the IESG will perform a review and
consideration of any errata that have been filed. If they do not
believe any of these should hold up the advancement, then the IESG,
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, informs the
community of their intent to advance a document from Proposed
Standard to Internet Standard.
If there is consensus for reclassification, the RFC will be
reclassified with or without publication of a new RFC.
In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.
In no event shall a document be published on the IETF Stream without
IETF consensus.
8.1.3. Publication
If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be
removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
8.2. Advancing in the Standards Track
The procedure described in Section 8.1 is followed for each action
that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards
track.
A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
least six months. This minimum period is intended to ensure adequate
opportunity for community review without severely impacting
timeliness. The interval 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 the announcement of the 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.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
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
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
time-at-level clock.
8.3. 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 be moved 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 5.2).
8.4. 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 standards track specifications for the same function
should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other
reason that an existing standards track specification should be
retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old
specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued
with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any
other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can
originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other
interested party.
8.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals
Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As
much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be
made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when
even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to
agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts
must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with
Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal
processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards
Process participants ordinarily reach consensus.
8.5.1. Working Group Disputes
An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or
not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or
her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group
has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality and/
or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group
process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two
types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by
the same process of review.
A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
Group as a whole) in the discussion.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the
parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area
Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.
The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
manner of its own choosing.
If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the
decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and
attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with
respect to all questions of technical merit.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
8.5.2. Process Failures
This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to
ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and
the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the
principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that
is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been
followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action
have been met.
If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
IESG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
complaint to the IETF.
Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG
review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then
review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own
choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.
If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the
IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB
may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision
which only the IESG is empowered to make.
The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed.
8.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the ISOC Board of Trustees. The
President of the ISOC shall acknowledge such an appeal within two
weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the petitioner
of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the appeal. The
Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own choosing
and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.
The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
with respect to all aspects of the dispute.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
8.5.4. Appeals Procedure
All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
facts of the dispute.
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies
responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define
the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making
their decision.
In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute,
and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must
be accomplished within a reasonable period of time.
NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not establish
a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered "reasonable" in
all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a premium on
consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately forgoes
deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of a
latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be
reached.
9. 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:
* Open Standards: Various national and international standards
bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, 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. All of these are considered to be "open external
standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
* Other Specifications: Other proprietary specifications that have
come to be widely used in the Internet may be treated by the
Internet community as if they were a "standards". Such a
specification is not generally developed in an open fashion, is
typically proprietary, and is controlled by the vendor, vendors,
or organization that produced it.
9.1. Use of External Specifications
To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
Internet community will not standardize a specification 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.
9.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard
An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "US-ASCII"
[US-ASCII]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
available without restriction or undue fee using standard Internet
applications such as the WWW.
9.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications
Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to
a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the
requirements of Section 2.1. If the other proprietary specification
is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be
published as an Informational RFC.
The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary
specification over technically equivalent and competing
specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification
"required" or "recommended".
9.1.3. Assumption
An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and
develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1)
the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with
the requirements of Section 2.1, and (2) change control has been
conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for
the specification or for specifications derived from the original
specification.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
10. Notices and Record Keeping
Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to
the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part
of the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the
organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet
Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working
Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made
sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested
parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain
(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to
support the participation of any interested individual. In the case
of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda
that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed.
The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity
shall include at least the following:
* The charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent
to a charter);
* Complete and accurate minutes of meetings;
* The archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and
* All written contributions from participants that pertain to the
organization's standards-related activity.
As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working
Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must
make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and
included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is
responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and
accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that
have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts
directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole
purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
circumstances.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
11. Varying the Process
This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which
Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product
of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in
Section 7.) It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely
itself to be replaced.
While, when published, this document represents the community's view
of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be
met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it
cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time
to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a
new version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as
are used for any other BCP.
In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures
leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be
situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases
it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described
below.
11.1. The Variance Procedure
Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc
committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or
advance it within, the standards track even though some of the
requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG
may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines
that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to
outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from
noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising
this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical
merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance,
(c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral
and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's
ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In
determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to
limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document
and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it
determines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet
community.
The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the
precise provision of this document which is causing the need for a
variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.
The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG
shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to
allow for community comment upon the proposal.
In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance
is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request
that it be published as a BCP.
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waiver of some
provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes
to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP
process.
The appeals process in Section 8.5 applies to this process.
11.2. Exclusions
No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt
any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or
consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings
and mailing list discussions.
Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be
subject of a variance: Section 7.1, Section 8.1, Section 8.1.1 (first
paragraph), Section 8.1.2, Section 8.3 (first sentence), Section 8.5
and Section 11.
12. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
13. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
14. Change Log
* Draft 0: Translated the nroff source of RFC 2026 into markdown.
The notices in the document at section 12.4 were prefaced with
"THIS TEXT ADDED TO PASS THE IDNITS CHECKS" so that the draft
could be published. The copyright notice is changed to the
current one. Because of this and other boilerplate, some section
numbers differ from the original RFC.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
* Draft 1: Add Scott Bradner as co-author. Add Note. Alphabetize
terminology. Minor wording tweaks.
* Draft 2: Clarified Note about the RFC's. More word tweaks.
Remove bulk of text from the Notices, and point to RFC 2026, to
avoid confusion and pass the idnits checks.
* Draft 3: Incorporated RFC 5378.
* Draft 4: Updated terminology and removed some obvious or old
terms. In some cases this meant minor editorial changes in the
body text.
* Draft 5: Add text about RFC 5657 and errata to the intro Note.
Incorporate RFC 5742.
* Draft 6: Incorporate RFC 6410. Moved some text around to make the
new text flow a bit better.
* Draft 7: Incorporate RFC 7100, RFC 7475, and RFC 9282. Add
mention of the "rfcindex.txt" file.
* Draft 8: Incorporate RFC 7127.
* Draft 9: Incorporate RFC 8789. Updates (not obsoletes) RFC5378,
RFC5657, and RFC7475.
* Draft 10: Incorporate RFC 8179.
* Draft 11: Remove IPR section (RFC 5378 and RFC 8179) and add a
pointer to those RFCs instead.
* Draft 12: Addressed the editorial issues found by the following
verified errata: 523, 524, 1622, 3014, 3095, and 7181. Errata
3095 was marked as editorial, although it seems to be a semantic
change but one that properly reflects consensus. The following
errata were closed by the conversion to markdown and associated
tooling, as they do the right thing: 6658, 6659, 6661, 6671, and
6669.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[BCP78] Best Current Practice 78,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[BCP79] Best Current Practice 79,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
[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>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322>.
[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>.
[RFC9281] Salz, R., "Entities Involved in the IETF Standards
Process", BCP 11, RFC 9281, DOI 10.17487/RFC9281, June
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9281>.
15.2. Informative References
[BCP25] Best Current Practice 25,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp25>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.
[bis2418] Salz, R. and S. O. Bradner, "IETF Working Group Guidelines
and Procedures", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
rsalz-2418bis-05, 9 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rsalz-
2418bis-05>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1311>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",
RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4844>.
[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5657>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5742>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>.
[RFC9280] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280>.
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft process October 2024
[US-ASCII] ANSI, "Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code
for Information Interchange", March 1986. ANSI X3.4-1986
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge those who have contributed to the
development of IETF RFC's and the processes that create both the
content and documents. In particular, we thank the authors of all
the documents that updated [RFC2026].
We also thank Sandy Ginoza of the Secretariat for sending all the
original RFC sources, and John Klensin for his support and
cooperation during the process of creating this document.
Authors' Addresses
Rich Salz
Akamai Technologies
Email: rsalz@akamai.com
Scott Bradner
SOBCO
Email: sob@sobco.com
Salz & Bradner Expires 13 April 2025 [Page 34]