Internet-Draft R. Housley
Updates: 2026 (if approved) Vigil Security
Intended Status: BCP 19 June 2010
Expires: 19 December 2010
Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-00.txt
Abstract
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Housley [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT June 2010
1. Introduction
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Standards
Process defined in RFC 2026 [1]. In recent years, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) has witnessed difficulty in advancing
documents through the maturity levels: Proposed Standard, Draft
Standard, and finally Standard. The proposed changes are designed to
simplify the process and reduce impediments to standards progression
while preserving the benefits of the IETF engineering approach.
During May 2010, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
discussed the possible ways of reducing impediments to standards
progression. The IESG mad the following observations:
o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never
advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication
receives much more scrutiny that is call for by RFC 2026 [1].
o When implementation reports are developed, protocols are improved
by removing the complexity associated with features that are not
used in practice.
The intent is to provide an environment where the IETF community gets
a "second bite at the apple" so that "good enough" documents are
published as soon as rough consensus is achieved. Further,
subsequent revisions to the document should easier, with advancement
in maturity level being based on achieving interoperable
implementations.
2. The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard
The requirements for Proposed Standard are unchanged; they remain
exactly as specified in RFC 2026 [1].
3. The Second Maturity Level 2: Interoperable Standard
This maturity level is very similar to Draft Standard as specified in
RFC 2026 [1]. The name is changed for two reasons. First, the new
name properly places the focus on interoperability. Second, the
change avoids confusion between "Draft Standard" and "Internet-
Draft".
The criteria for advancing from Proposed Standard to Interoperable
Standard are roughly the same as the current criteria for moving to
Draft Standard.
Along with documentation of interoperability testing, the
documentation must include information about the support of each of
Housley [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT June 2010
the individual options and features. Guidance on documenting the
specific implementations which qualify the specification
Interoperable Standard status is provided in RFC 5657 [2]. This
documentation should be submitted to the Area Director (AD) with the
protocol action request, which is described in Section 6 of RFC 2026
[1].
4. No Third Maturity Level
The final "Standard" maturity level is simply abolished. The benefit
associated with third maturity level has proven insufficient to
justify the effort associated with document progression. The
"Interoperable Standard" becomes the final maturity level.
5. Timing Requirements
The requirement for six months between "Proposed Standard" and
"Interoperable Standard" is removed. If an interoperability report
is provided with the initial protocol action request, then the
document can be approved directly at the Interoperable Standard
maturity level without first being approved at the Proposed Standard
maturity level.
In practice the annual review of Proposed Standard documents after
two years has not taken place. Lack of this review has not revealed
any ill effects on the Internet Standards Process. As a result, the
requirement for this review is dropped. No review cycle is imposed
on standards track documents at any maturity level.
6. Downward References Permitted
Interoperable Standards are allowed to make normative references to
Proposed Standards. The current rule prohibiting "down references"
is a major cause of stagnation in the advancement of documents. This
change allows an Interoperable Standard to reference features that
have not been formally agreed to be demonstrably interoperable. This
change enables expeditious promotion of Proposed Standard documents
to Interoperable Standard documents by removing a significant
impediment. Down references to Internet-Draft documents continue to
be prohibited.
7. STD Numbers
Under current practice, a STD number is assigned only when a document
(or document set) reaches the full Standard maturity level. In
several situations, a Standard is obsoleted by a Proposed Standard,
causing great confusion about the specification that ought to be
implemented. Further, the assignment of an STD number offers little
Housley [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT June 2010
value. As a result, the STD numbering system is abandoned.
8. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
On the day these changes are published as a BCP, all existing Draft
Standard and Standard documents automatically get reclassified as
Interoperable Standard documents. Corresponding changes would be
made to the RFC Index and other features of the RFC Editor web site.
Also, the STD index will be marked historic.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
10. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by the IANA.
{{{ RFC Editor: Please delete this section before publication. }}}
11. Acknowledgements
A two-stage standards track proposal has been proposed many times.
Spencer Dawkins, Charlie Perkins and Dave Crocker made a proposal in
2003. Another proposal was made by Scott Bradner in 2004. Another
proposal was made by Brian Carpenter in June 2005. Another proposal
was made by Ran Atkinson in 2006.
In May 2010, the IESG discussed the topic at length and came to the
conclusion that the current situation was becoming more and more
difficult. This proposal takes ideas from the IESG discussion as
well as many of these prior proposals.
12. Informative References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Dusseault, L., and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard",
BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
Housley [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT June 2010
Author's Address
Russell Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170 USA
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Housley [Page 5]
