Network Working Group B. Fenner
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264 (if approved) May 30, 2006
Expires: December 1, 2006
RFC 1264 is Obsolete
draft-fenner-obsolete-1264-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely
different time in the life of the Internet. It prescribed rules to
protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have
various undesirable properties. In today's Internet, there are so
many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
get in the way.
Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006
1. Introduction
RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when
publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including
requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc. These rules
were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or
unscalable new protocols.
Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness.
Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the
IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner.
At the time of this writing, there is an IETF working group
(newtrk [1]) chartered to update the IETF Standards Process. Since
this work is ongoing, we encourage those who believe there should be
different rules for different types of protocols to participate in
that work in order to clarify the qualifications. The biggest
problem we've experienced is to perform a precise classification of
when to apply additional constrains and when not to.
The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to
require additional implementation experience when it appears to be
needed. We do not need any more rules than that. RFC 2026 says:
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.
Therefore, this document obsoletes RFC 1264. While that does not
prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring implementation
and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026 rules, it removes
the broad, general requirement from all routing documents.
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security Considerations
While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the security-
related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the requirement
for a Security Considerations section) suffice.
5. Acknowledgements
Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to
produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to
today's Internet. This work was eventually abandoned when it was
realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings,
Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that
there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the
goals of the IETF.
6. Normative References
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
Current Status INFORMATIONAL, October 1991.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, Updated by RFC3667, Updated
by RFC3668, Updated by RFC3932, Updated by RFC3979,
Updated by RFC3978, Current Status BEST CURRENT PRACTICE,
October 1996.
Note from RFC Editor: 8/29/05 - marked as obsoleting RFC
1871 according to messages with subject line: Subject:
Housekeeping: obsoleting RFC 1871. and Subject: 2026
obsoletes 1871
[1] <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/newtrk-charter.html>
Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006
Author's Address
Bill Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
75 Willow Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
Phone: +1 650 330-7893
Email: fenner@research.att.com
Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 1264 is Obsolete May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Fenner Expires December 1, 2006 [Page 5]
