Network Working Group J. Klensin, Ed.
Internet-Draft May 19, 2006
Expires: November 20, 2006
Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor
draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt
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 November 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
There is a long-term tradition in the Internet community, predating
the IETF by many years, of use of the RFC series to publish materials
that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its review and
approval mechanisms. These documents, known as "independent
submissions", serve a number of important functions for the Internet
community, both inside and outside of the community of active IETF
participants. This document discusses the independent submission
model, some reasons why it is important, and describes editorial and
processing norms that can be used for independent submissions as we
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
go forward into new relationships between the IETF community and its
primary technical publisher.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Context and Philosophical Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Role of Independent Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Posting of Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Request for Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Initial RFC Editor Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Document Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Review and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6. Unsolicited Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.7. Additional Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.8. Formal IESG Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.9. Final Decision and Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.10. Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.11. Final Editing and Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Editorial Review Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Interactions with RFC 3932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
1. Introduction
There is a long-term tradition in the Internet community, predating
the IETF by many years, of use of the RFC series to publish materials
that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its review and
approval mechanisms. These documents, known as "independent
submissions", serve a number of important functions for the Internet
community, both inside and outside of the community of active IETF
participants. This document discusses the independent submission
model, some reasons why it is important, and describes editorial and
processing norms that can be used for independent submissions as we
go forward into new relationships between the IETF community and its
primary technical publisher.
To understand the perspective of this document, it is important to
remember that the RFC-Editor function predates the creation of the
IETF. As of the time of this writing, the RFC series goes back 36
years while the IETF is celebrating its 20th anniversary. All of the
documents that were published before the IETF was created, and for
some years thereafter, would be considered independent submissions
today. As the IETF evolved, the IAB and then the IETF itself chose
to publish IETF documents as RFCs while fully understanding that the
RFC-Editor function was an independent publication mechanism. Other
decisions were possible: e.g., the IETF could have decided to create
it own publication series. It was felt that there was considerable
value in continuing to publish the IETF work in the same series as
the one used to publish the basic protocols for the Internet.
1.1. Terminology Note
This document describes what have historically been referred to a
"independent submissions". That term is distinguished from those
IETF and IAB community documents that originate from formal groups --
IAB, IRTF, IETF WGs -- and from submissions submitted to the IESG for
standards-track, informational, or experimental processing.
Documents produced by individuals, rather than IETF WGs or others
IETF-affiliated groups, but submitted for publication under Area
Director sponsorship, have been known historically as "individual
submissions".
For convenience and obvious historical reasons, the editor and
publisher of documents that are not processed through the IETF is
known below as the "RFC Editor". The RFC Editor will typically by an
organization or one or more senior people and associated staff, and
the term is used collectively below. That term is not intended to
predict the future, either in terms of who does the job or what they,
or the document series, is called.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
1.2. Context and Philosophical Assumptions
This document contains text that, if agreed to by the community, may
suggest a reexamination of and a corresponding update to RFC 3932
[RFC3932]. Issues that should be examined and possibly changed in
3932 are identified in an appendix for easy separation into a form
that would be appropriate for BCP processing. This document
complements the discussions in the ongoing "TechSpec" effort,
including the discussion of IETF-originated documents in [Mankin-
Techspec]. It takes a somewhat stronger view than some have read
into those documents, starting from the belief that independent
submissions are most valuable if they are, in fact, independent of
the IETF process. From the perspective of the IETF, independent
submissions are especially important as checks on the IETF processes
even though such checks are not the only, or even a common, reason
for them. That role is compromised if IETF-related entities are able
to block or deprecate such documents to a degree beyond that needed
to avoid difficulties with the standards process. While the authors
and contributors to this document are firmly committed to IESG review
to identify conflicts with the standards process and suggestions that
would cause serious harm to the Internet, as outlined in RFC 3932 and
RFC 2026 [RFC2026], they believe that the IESG should deprecate, as
distinct from issuing general warnings about the lack of formal IETF
review, only those things about which there is IETF consensus about
harm.
2. The Role of Independent Submissions
When the RFC series was fairly new, RFCs could be used to publish
general papers on networking as well as the types of documents we
would describes as standards today. Those roles also developed as
part of the early design and development of the ARPANET, long before
anyone dreamt of the IETF and when the distinction between, e.g.,
standards and informational documents was less precisely drawn. In
more recent years, independent submissions have become important for
multiple reasons, some of them relatively new. They include:
o Discussion of Internet-related technologies that are not part of
the IETF agenda.
o Introduction of important new ideas as a bridge publication venue
between academia and IETF engineering.
o Informational discussions of technologies, options, or experience
with protocols.
o Informational publication of vendor-specific protocols.
o Critiques and discussions of alternatives to IETF standards-track
protocols. The potential for such critiques provides an important
check on the IETF's standards processes and should be seen in that
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
light.
o Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
While many documents of this type are published via the IESG
approval path (see [RFC3932] RFC 3932, Section ???), the
independent submission path has traditionally been open to them.
These documents are published for the historical record.
o Satirical materials.
o Meeting notes and reports (RFC 164 [RFC0164] is the earliest, 1109
[RFC1109] probably the most important).
o Editorials (the best example is IEN-137, not an RFC).
o Eulogies (RFC 2441 [RFC2441])
o Technical contributions (e.g., RFC 1810 [RFC1810]) and,
historically,
o RFC Editor and, at least prior to the handoff between ISI and
ICANN and the June 2000 MOU [RFC2860], IANA Policy Statements
(e.g., [RFC2223] and RFC 1591 [RFC1591]).
It should be clear from the list above that, to be effective, the
review and approval process for independent submissions should be
largely independent of the IETF. As a important principle that has
been applied historically, the RFC Editor should seek advice from the
IESG about possible relationships and conflicts with IETF work. The
IESG may ask that publication of particular documents be deferred, as
a courtesy, because their untimely publication could cause confusion
or other harm with proposals under consideration for standardization
and, absent compelling arguments to the contrary, the RFC Editor will
honor such requests. Similarly, any submission that constitutes an
alternative to, or is in conflict with, an IETF Standard or proposal
for standards-track adoption must clearly indicate that relationship.
The IESG may identify such conflicts or, after doing a technical
review, conclude that the document describes a protocol or technique
that would cause operational damage to the Internet. In those cases,
the IESG may recommend explanatory or qualifying text for the RFC
Editor to include in the document if it is published.
However, in no case should qualifying text go beyond these general
principles. In particular, no text supplied by the IESG should
indicate that the independent submission is technically deficient or
should not be taken seriously unless there has been an IETF technical
review that has reached consensus on that conclusion.
The specific procedures to be followed in review are described in
Section 4.
3. Submission
Independent submissions are submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
They must first be posted as Internet Drafts, so the submission is
typically simply a note requesting that the RFC Editor consider a
particular Internet Draft for publication. The process is described
in more detail in [RFC2223] and a working draft of an update to it
[RFC2223bis].
4. Review
While this document is consistent with the broad outline of
independent submission and review as practiced over the years, it
specifies some new arrangements in RFC Editor processing that will
improve the balance between openness and independent decisons.
[RFC3932], specified its view of its role in the review process for
independent submissions.
In general, the steps in the review process are as follows:
4.1. Posting of Draft
The author(s) or editor(s) of a document post it as an Internet
Draft.
4.2. Request for Publication
After the normal opportunity for community review and feedback
provided by the submission of the I-D and the I-D repository
announcement thereof, the author or editor sends a request for
consideration for publication to the RFC Editor at
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.
4.3. Initial RFC Editor Review
RFC Editor Staff perform an initial check on the document. If they
believe there is a high likelihood of conflicts or other interactions
with IETF efforts (including believing that the document is one that
the IESG should probably process), they may forward it to the IESG,
or relevant ADs, for preliminary evaluation and comment.
4.4. Document Rejection
If the document does not appear publishable, the RFC Editor may
reject a submitted document at any point in the process specified
here. Such rejection would normally be based on the conclusion that
the submission does not meet the technical or editorial standards of
the RFC Series or is not relevant to the areas that the series
covers. Alternatively, the RFC Editor Staff may, at their
discretion, iterate with the author on the document to improve its
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
quality. If a document is rejected by the RFC Editor, the author may
request an additional review from the IAB, as described below, but
the IAB is not obligated to do that review, nor is the RFC Editor
obligated to publish even with a favorable IAB review.
4.5. Review and Evaluation
The RFC Editor arranges for one or more reviews of the document.
This may include Editorial Board reviews or evaluation of reviews by
others. Unless there is some substantive reason to not do so, these
reviews will be made public and posted on the RFC Editor web site.
The author may request that the reviews be kept private and the
request to publish their document be withdrawn.
This section does not preclude private communications between
reviewers, the Editorial Board, and the RFC Editor; such
communications will remain confidential. At minimum, the author
shall receive a written summary of the review(s).
While the reviews will generally be public, as discussed above,
reviewers are allowed to be anonymous at their request.
4.6. Unsolicited Reviews
Unsolicited reviews from parties independent of the author are
welcome at any time and will be handled as above. Unsolicited
reviews will be shared with the author including the identity of the
reviewer.
4.7. Additional Reviews
If the author is unsatisfied with the review(s), the author may
request that the RFC Editor solicit additional reviews. In
exceptional circumstances, the author may request that the IAB review
the documents. Such requests to the IAB, and any reviews the IAB
chooses to perform, will occur according to procedures of the IAB's
choosing. However, the IAB is not required to initiate a review or
comply with a request for one: a request to the IAB for a review is
not an appeal process.. The RFC Editor is expected to consider all
competent reviews carefully, and in the absence of some unusual
circumstance, a preponderance of favorable reviews should lead to
publication.
4.8. Formal IESG Review
Once the RFC Editor has made a tentative decision to publish, the
document is forwarded to the IESG for evaluation with a relatively
short timeout.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
The IESG evaluation is not a technical one. Instead, it covers the
issues outlined above in Section 1.2 and listed in RFC 3932 or its
successors. That is, the evaluation should focus exclusively on
conflicts or confusion with IETF process, end runs around working
group activities, and obvious and significant harm to the Internet.
At the time the document is forwarded to the IESG, the RFC Editor
will post an indication on its web pages that the document is under
IESG review and that comments on conflicts or harm can be sent to the
IESG with copies to the RFC Editor. Additional mechanisms may be
developed from time to time to inform a community that a document is
entering formal prepublication review. Comments not directly related
to IETF procedures or conflicts may be sent directly to the author(s)
and RFC Editor.
If the IESG, after completing its review, concludes that publication
of the document should be delayed for a reasonable period of time,
the RFC Editor will grant that request. The current agreement
between the RFC Editor and the IESG on requested delays is expected
to continue. That agreement permits the IESG to ask for a delay of
up to six months and, if necessary, to renew that request twice, for
a total possible delay of 18 months.
If the IESG concludes that the document should not be published as an
RFC, it will request that the RFC Editor not publish, providing
appropriate justification. The RFC Editor will consider the request
to not publish the document.
The RFC Editor or the author may request that the IAB review the
IESG's request to delay or not publish the document and for an
additional opinion. Such a request will be made public via the RFC
Editor web site. As with the IESG review itself, the IAB's opinion,
if any, will be advisory. And, as with author requests for an IAB
technical review (see Section 4.7), the IAB is not obligated to
perform this type of review.
4.9. Final Decision and Notification
In all cases, the ultimate decision to publish or not publish, and
with what language, rests with the RFC Editor.
Information about the IESG requested publication delay or request to
not publish a document will be posted to the RFC Editor web site to
supplement document status information.
4.10. Intellectual Property Rights
IPR provisions for independent submissions are as specified in the
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
material on RFC Editor submissions in BCP 78 [RFC3978] although that
material should eventually be migrated into a successor of this
document.
4.11. Final Editing and Publication
Once a document is approved for publication, it is handled in a
fashion similar to other RFCs, with principles about priorities
worked out with the IAB as appropriate.
5. The Editorial Review Board
The RFC Editor appoints and maintains an Editorial Review Board
which, much like the Editorial Boards of professional journals and
publishers, provides the RFC Editor with both advice and reviews of
particular proposed publications and general and strategic policy
advice. The membership list of the Editorial Review Board is public
and can be found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/edboard.html. From
time to time, the RFC Editor will solicit suggestions for new
appointees from the IAB and other sources and will seek IAB comments
on those to be appointed. However, to ensure the independence of the
independent submission process, the final decision to appoint (or not
appoint) Editorial Board members rests with the RFC Editor.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies an RFC Editor (and IETF) administrative and
publication procedure. It has no specific security implications.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions by the IANA.
8. Acknowledgments
Special thanks are due to Bob Hinden and Craig Partridge, who made
several suggestions for improved text in earlier versions of this
document and to Stewart Bryant, Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter, Vint
Cerf, and Leslie Daigle who made a number of useful suggestions about
the organization and content of subsequent versions.
Appendix A. Interactions with RFC 3932
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
The discussions that led to this document and experience since RFC
3932 was published suggests that a review of the principles of IESG
review and corresponding adjustment of specific text is in order.
The author of this document believes that the principles should be:
1. No document should be published on an independent submission
basis that would cause confusion with an active IETF protocol
development or specification effort. The IESG is normally the
best-positioned body to determine whether such conflicts exist.
2. No independent submission should be so written as to state or
imply that it is a standard, or a specification that will be
standardized, from the IETF or any other body unless that is, in
fact, the case. Similarly, no claim should be made about IETF
consensus unless the IESG determines, after a Last Call or
equivalent process, and such consensus actually exists.
3. Some, although certainly not all, independent submissions are
extensively discussed and reviewed within the IETF community, or
the Internet community more generally, prior to submission for
publication. Just as no statement should appear in a published
document that states or implies level of adoption, agreement, or
consensus that did not occur, no statement should appear that
states that significantly less review occurred than was actually
the case. Similarly, no statement should appear that suggests
that the IETF community has a negative view of the document
unless such a view has been established via formal consensus-
determining mechanisms.
4. It is desirable that well-reasoned critical reviews and critiques
of, and even dissents from, IETF standards and conclusions be
published in the RFC series. These documents must be clear about
their status and purpose. Such clarity in the text is preferable
to "boilerplate" disclaimers that few people will read: such
boilerplate is, at best, a second-choice alternative to clarity
in the text. Conflict with an IETF position is not a reason to
deny, or even significantly defer, publication. The potential
for confusion with an IETF Standard or position, or its
interpretation, usually will be a reason to deny or defer
publication.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
[RFC2223bis]
Reynolds, J., Ed. and R. Braden, Ed., "Instructions to
Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt>.
[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
9.2. Informative References
[Mankin-Techspec]
Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF Technical
Publication Service", May 2006, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt>.
[RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting,
5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, May 1971.
[RFC1109] Cerf, V., "Report of the second Ad Hoc Network Management
Review Group", RFC 1109, August 1989.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC1810] Touch, J., "Report on MD5 Performance", RFC 1810,
June 1995.
[RFC2441] Cohen, D., "Working with Jon Tribute delivered at UCLA,
October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, November 1998.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions May 2006
Author's Address
John C Klensin (editor)
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions 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.
Klensin Expires November 20, 2006 [Page 13]