rfc2026.txt   draft-moonesamy-procon-2026bis-00.txt 
Network Working Group S. Bradner Network Working Group S. Moonesamy, Ed.
Request for Comments: 2026 Harvard University Internet-Draft 2 July 2025
BCP: 9 October 1996 Obsoletes: 2026 (if approved)
Obsoletes: 1602 Intended status: Best Current Practice
Category: Best Current Practice Expires: 3 January 2026
The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 (Updated)
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for draft-moonesamy-procon-2026bis-00
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for
the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the
stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a
document between stages and the types of documents used during this document between stages and the types of documents used during this
process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and
copyright issues associated with the standards process. copyright issues associated with the standards process.
Table of Contents Status of This Memo
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................2 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
1.1 Internet Standards...........................................3 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
1.2 The Internet Standards Process...............................3
1.3 Organization of This Document................................5
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................5
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................5
2.2 Internet-Drafts..............................................7
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................8
3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................8
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................8
3.3 Requirement Levels...........................................9
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................10
4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................11
4.1.1 Proposed Standard.......................................11
4.1.2 Draft Standard..........................................12
4.1.3 Internet Standard.......................................13
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................13
4.2.1 Experimental............................................13
4.2.2 Informational...........................................14
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......14
4.2.4 Historic................................................15
5. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................16 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
6.1 Standards Actions...........................................17 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
6.1.1 Initiation of Action....................................17
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval................................17
6.1.3 Publication.............................................18
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track............................19
6.3 Revising a Standard.........................................20
6.4 Retiring a Standard.........................................20
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals.............................21
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes...................................21
6.5.2 Process Failures.........................................22
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure........................22
6.5.4 Appeals Procedure........................................23
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................23
7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................24
7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................24
7.1.2 Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................24
7.1.3 Assumption..............................................25
8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................25
9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................26
9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................26
9.2 Exclusions...................................................27
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................27
10.1. General Policy............................................27
10.2 Confidentiality Obligations...............................28
10.3. Rights and Permissions....................................28
10.3.1. All Contributions......................................28
10.3.2. Standards Track Documents..............................29
10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and
Non-discriminatory Terms................................30
10.4. Notices...................................................30
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................32
12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................32
13. REFERENCES.....................................................33
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................33
15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS...............................................34
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................35
1. INTRODUCTION 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 3 January 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Technical Specification (TS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Applicability Statement (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Proposed Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Draft Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Internet Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs . 15
4.2.4. Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. BCP Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Standards Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.1. Initiation of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3. Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Advancing in the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Revising a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4. Retiring a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.5.1. Working Group Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.5.2. Process Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5.4. Appeals Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Use of External Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.3. Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. VARYING THE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1. The Variance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.1. General Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.2. Confidentiality Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.3. Rights and Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.3.1. All Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.3.2. Standards Track Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.3.3. Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.4. Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction"
This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet This memo documents the process currently used by the Internet
community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The
Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG). Steering Group (IESG).
1.1 Internet Standards 1.1. Internet Standards
The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host
communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and
procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many
isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the
global Internet but use the Internet Standards. global Internet but use the Internet Standards.
The Internet Standards Process described in this document is The Internet Standards Process described in this document is
concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are
used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the TCP/
TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or
standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet
Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol Standards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol
or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the
protocol itself. protocol itself.
In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet. recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.
1.2 The Internet Standards Process 1.2. The Internet Standards Process
In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development
and several iterations of review by the Internet community and and several iterations of review by the Internet community and
revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the
appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the
process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating
specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider
the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of
establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty
of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the
Internet community. Internet community.
The goals of the Internet Standards Process are: The goals of the Internet Standards Process are:
o technical excellence;
o prior implementation and testing; * technical excellence;
o clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;
o openness and fairness; and * prior implementation and testing;
o timeliness.
* clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;
* openness and fairness; and
* timeliness.
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to be
be flexible. flexible.
o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and * These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and
objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet
Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and
comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the
standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed
and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic
mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide
on-line directories. on-line directories.
o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting * These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification
must be implemented and tested for correct operation and must be implemented and tested for correct operation and
interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in
increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as
an Internet Standard. an Internet Standard.
o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to * These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to
the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the
standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to
be vital in achieving the goals listed above. be vital in achieving the goals listed above.
The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior
implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested implementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested
parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the
other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology other hand, today's rapid development of networking technology
demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards demands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards
Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing is believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard, technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,
or openness and fairness. or openness and fairness.
From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain, From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain,
an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
requirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users requirements and technology into its design and implementation.
of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and
services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution
as a major tenet of Internet philosophy. as a major tenet of Internet philosophy.
The procedures described in this document are the result of a number 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 of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience. increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
1.3 Organization of This Document 1.3. Organization of This Document
Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet
Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of Internet Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of Internet
standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards
specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice
RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet
standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally- standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally-
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet
Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices
and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow one-
one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document
Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect
intellectual property rights in the context of the development and intellectual property rights in the context of the development and
use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of
some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12 some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12
notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document. notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document.
Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14 Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14
contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document. contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document.
Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix A Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix A
contains a list of frequently-used acronyms. contains a list of frequently -used acronyms.
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) 2.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs)
Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification
is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document
series. This archival series is the official publication channel for series. This archival series is the official publication channel for
Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB, Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,
and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of
Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other
Internet document-retrieval systems. Internet document-retrieval systems.
The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see
Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC
publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the
general direction of the IAB. general direction of the IAB.
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available [RFC1543]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also
in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material available in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain
(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the
version, and it may be formatted differently. ASCII version, and it may be formatted differently.
********************************************************* ********************************************************
* * * *
* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * * A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *
* specifications: the ASCII text version is the * * specifications: the ASCII text version is the *
* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a * * definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *
* complete and accurate specification of the standard, * * complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. * * including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *
* * * *
********************************************************* *********************************************************
The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and Protocol Standards" [STD1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and
other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
specification (see section 3). specification (see section 3).
Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD' Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'
subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been subseries of the RFC series [RFC1311]. When a specification has been
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
"STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
series. (see section 4.1.3) series. (see section 4.1.3)
Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form
the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
in the RFC series. (see section 5) in the RFC series. (see section 5)
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards
track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2). of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
******************************************************** ********************************************************
* * * *
* It is important to remember that not all RFCs * * It is important to remember that not all RFCs *
* are standards track documents, and that not all * * are standards track documents, and that not all *
* standards track documents reach the level of * * standards track documents reach the level of *
* Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs * * Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs *
* which describe current practices have been given * * which describe current practices have been given *
* the review and approval to become BCPs. See * * the review and approval to become BCPs. See *
* RFC-1796 [6] for further information. * * RFC-1796 [6] for further information. *
* * * *
******************************************************** ********************************************************
2.2 Internet-Drafts 2.2. Internet-Drafts
During the development of a specification, draft versions of the During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
document are made available for informal review and comment by document are made available for informal review and comment by
placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving
working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
the process of review and revision. the process of review and revision.
An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an
Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same
specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.
An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
subject to change or removal at any time. subject to change or removal at any time.
******************************************************** ********************************************************
* * * *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. * * with an Internet-Draft. *
* * * *
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft.
This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as
as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
complete and understandable document with or without the reference to complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
the "Work in Progress". the "Work in Progress".
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into
one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and Applicability
Applicability Statement (AS). Statement (AS).
3.1 Technical Specification (TS) 3.1. Technical Specification (TS)
A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,
procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of
the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more
parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self- parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self-
contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications contained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications
by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet by reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet
Standards). Standards).
A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent 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 for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently
specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that
effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use
within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the
particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different
system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement. system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement.
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS) 3.2. Applicability Statement (AS)
An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular 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 capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not
Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7. Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.
An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they 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 are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges
of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification, The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,
commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of commonly called a "requirements document", for a particular class of
Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts. Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.
An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track 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 4.1). than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS
at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at
the Standard level. the Standard level.
3.3 Requirement Levels 3.3. Requirement Levels
An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each
of the TSs to which it refers: of the TSs to which it refers:
(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by (a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by
the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For
IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems
TCP/IP Protocol Suite. using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.
(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not (b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not required
required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally
accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain
of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to
include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended
in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is TSs in their products, and should omit them only if the omission
justified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET is justified by some special circumstance. For example, the
protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit TELNET protocol should be implemented by all systems that would
from remote access. benefit from remote access.
(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional (c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional within
within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS creates
creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a particular
particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user may
may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For
example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an
environment where the DECNET protocol is used. environment where the DECNET protocol is used.
As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in the standards
standards track or that have been retired from the standards track or that have been retired from the standards track, and are
track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective. therefore not required, recommended, or elective. Two additional
Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for "requirement level" designations are available for these TSs:
these TSs:
(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use only
only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage of a
of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally be
be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. limited to those actively involved with the experiment.
(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate (e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate for
for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because
of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic
status. status.
Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related
TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed
specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of
applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a
single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In
such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately such cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately
distributing the information among several documents just to preserve distributing the information among several documents just to preserve
the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply 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 to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a
modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs. modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.
The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more
detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found
in appropriate ASs. in appropriate ASs.
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK
Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and
"Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in
which specifications move along the standards track is described in which specifications move along the standards track is described in
section 6. section 6.
Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard,
further evolution often occurs based on experience and the further evolution often occurs based on experience and the
recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of
Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet.
Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to
indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set of
maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other
specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track. specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.
4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels 4.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels
Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing, Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing,
and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages
are formally labeled "maturity levels". are formally labeled "maturity levels".
This section describes the maturity levels and the expected This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
characteristics of specifications at each level. characteristics of specifications at each level.
4.1.1 Proposed Standard 4.1.1. Proposed Standard
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
level. level.
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
skipping to change at page 13, line 13 skipping to change at page 12, line 38
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended. environment is not recommended.
4.1.2 Draft Standard 4.1.2. Draft Standard
A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases have been developed, and implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
for which sufficient successful operational experience has been for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology
is required for implementation, the separate implementations must is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
skipping to change at page 14, line 11 skipping to change at page 13, line 34
implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate
unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production
environments. environments.
A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification,
and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems
encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to
deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive
environment. environment.
4.1.3 Internet Standard 4.1.3. Internet Standard
A specification for which significant implementation and successful A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community. community.
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 4.2. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels
Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification
may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended 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 for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor. Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental", one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels "Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels
are not Internet Standards in any sense. are not Internet Standards in any sense.
4.2.1 Experimental 4.2.1. Experimental
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution. Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
4.2.2 Informational 4.2.2. Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3). (see section 4.2.3).
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor. concurrence of the RFC Editor.
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs 4.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are 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 easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
skipping to change at page 16, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.
Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using
the process described in section 6.1.1. the process described in section 6.1.1.
4.2.4 Historic 4.2.4. Historic
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
"Historic" is historical.) "Historic" is historical.)
Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 17, line 9
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
community's view of that issue. community's view of that issue.
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the
IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards
Process and is published as a BCP. Process and is published as a BCP.
5.1 BCP Review Process 5.1. BCP Review Process
Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs
are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage 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 standards track and instead generally only make sense for full and
immediate instantiation. immediate instantiation.
The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP
is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and the
existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF
Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the
document, the process ends and the document is published. The document, the process ends and the document is published. The
resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the
IETF. IETF.
Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must
undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of this
document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the
in section 6.5. procedures in section 6.5.
Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived
at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care. at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.
Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger
Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable
for a content different from Informational RFCs. for a content different from Informational RFCs.
A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
retaining its RFC number(s). retaining its RFC number(s).
skipping to change at page 18, line 20 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably
objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available
to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,
along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee
of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any
specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG specification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG
concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for
elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential
component of the decision-making process. component of the decision-making process.
6.1 Standards Actions 6.1. Standards Actions
A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
be approved by the IESG. be approved by the IESG.
6.1.1 Initiation of Action 6.1.1. Initiation of Action
A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC. section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.
It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less 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 than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
recommendation for action may be initiated. recommendation for action may be initiated.
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director, Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
the IESG. the IESG.
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval 6.1.2. IESG Review and Approval
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
of the specification is consistent with that expected for the of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended. maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these
determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by
skipping to change at page 19, line 29 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may
decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a
current Last-Call period. current Last-Call period.
The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to
consider the specification for publication in a different category consider the specification for publication in a different category
than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last-
Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.
The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based 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 on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
specification being published at a "higher" level than the original specification being published at a "higher" level than the original
Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the
IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
originating from an IETF Working Group. originating from an IETF Working Group.
In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the 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 IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.
6.1.3 Publication 6.1.3. Publication
If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be
removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.
An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This
shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
actions. actions.
The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
protocol and service specifications. protocol and service specifications.
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track 6.2. Advancing in the Standards Track
The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action
that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards that attends the advancement of a specification along the standards
track. track.
A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
least six (6) months. least six (6) months.
A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least
four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred,
skipping to change at page 20, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 22
corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the
action. action.
A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall
determine the scope and significance of the revision to the determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant
revision may require that the specification accumulate more revision may require that the specification accumulate more
experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, experience at its current maturity level before progressing.
if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,
may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re- the IESG may recommend that the revision be treated as a new
entering the standards track at the beginning. document, re- entering the standards track at the beginning.
Change of status shall result in republication of the specification 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 as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
all in the specification since the last publication. Generally, all in the specification since the last publication. Generally,
desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next
standards action on the specification will not always be possible or standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
technical error that does not represent a change in overall function technical error that does not represent a change in overall function
of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such 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 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 a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum
time-at-level clock. time-at-level clock.
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
6.3 Revising a Standard 6.3. Revising a Standard
A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress A new version of an established Internet Standard must progress
through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a
completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the
Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which
will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both
versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements
of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between
the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the 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 text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an
Applicability Statement; see section 3.2). Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).
6.4 Retiring a Standard 6.4. Retiring a Standard
As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new
Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one
or more existing standards track specifications for the same function or more existing standards track specifications for the same function
should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other
reason that an existing standards track specification should be reason that an existing standards track specification should be
retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old
specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued
with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any
other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can
originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other
interested party. interested party.
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 6.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals
Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As
much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be
made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when
even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to
agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts
must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This
section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with
Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal
processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards
Process participants ordinarily reach consensus. Process participants ordinarily reach consensus.
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes 6.5.1. Working Group Disputes
An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or
not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his 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 her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group
has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality and/
and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group
process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two
types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by
the same process of review. the same process of review.
A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
Group as a whole) in the discussion. Group as a whole) in the discussion.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the
parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area
skipping to change at page 23, line 9 skipping to change at page 23, line 9
If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal 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 decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and
attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing. attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with
respect to all questions of technical merit. respect to all questions of technical merit.
6.5.2 Process Failures 6.5.2. Process Failures
This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to
ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and
the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the 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 principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that
is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been
followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action
have been met. have been met.
If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
complaint to the IETF. complaint to the IETF.
Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG 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 review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then
the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own 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. choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.
If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be 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 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, decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the
or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB
however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision
only the IESG is empowered to make. which only the IESG is empowered to make.
The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. not the Internet standards procedures have been followed.
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure 6.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review 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 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
the outcome of its review. the outcome of its review.
The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
with respect to all aspects of the dispute. with respect to all aspects of the dispute.
6.5.4 Appeals Procedure 6.5.4. Appeals Procedure
All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
facts of the dispute. facts of the dispute.
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies
responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define
the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making
their decision. their decision.
In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute,
and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must
be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. be accomplished within a reasonable period of time.
[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not [NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not establish
establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered "reasonable" in
"reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a premium on
premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately foregoes
foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of a
a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be
reached.] reached.]
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish Many standards groups other than the IETF create and publish
standards documents for network protocols and services. When these standards documents for network protocols and services. When these
external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is
desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to
establish Internet Standards relating to these external establish Internet Standards relating to these external
specifications. specifications.
There are two categories of external specifications: There are two categories of external specifications:
(1) Open Standards (1) Open Standards Various national and international standards
bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of
Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, protocol and service specifications that are similar to
ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service Technical Specifications defined here. National and
specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications international groups also publish "implementors' agreements"
defined here. National and international groups also publish that are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body
"implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability of implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical
Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail application of their standards. All of these are considered to
concerned with the practical application of their standards. All be "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet
of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the Standards Process.
purposes of the Internet Standards Process.
(2) Other Specifications
Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used (2) Other Specifications Other proprietary specifications that have
in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if come to be widely used in the Internet may be treated by the
they were a "standards". Such a specification is not generally Internet community as if they were a "standards". Such a
developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is specification is not generally developed in an open fashion, is
controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced typically proprietary, and is controlled by the vendor, vendors,
it. or organization that produced it.
7.1 Use of External Specifications 7.1. Use of External Specifications
To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
Internet community will not standardize a specification that is Internet community will not standardize a specification that is
simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification simply an "Internet version" of an existing external specification
unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.
However, there are several ways in which an external specification However, there are several ways in which an external specification
that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet
may be adopted for Internet use. may be adopted for Internet use.
7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard 7.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard
An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2]. incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII"
Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available [ANSI]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
online. available online.
7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications 7.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications
Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to
a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the
requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary specification requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary specification
is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be
published as an Informational RFC. published as an Informational RFC.
The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary
specification over technically equivalent and competing specification over technically equivalent and competing
specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification
"required" or "recommended". "required" or "recommended".
7.1.3 Assumption 7.1.3. Assumption
An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and
develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1) develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1)
the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with
the requirements of section 10, and (2) change control has been the requirements of section 10, and (2) change control has been
conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for
the specification or for specifications derived from the original the specification or for specifications derived from the original
specification. specification.
8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING 8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING
skipping to change at page 26, line 38 skipping to change at page 26, line 38
sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested
parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain
(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to (or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to
support the participation of any interested individual. In the case support the participation of any interested individual. In the case
of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda
that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed. that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed.
The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity The formal record of an organization's standards-related activity
shall include at least the following: shall include at least the following:
o the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent * the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent
to a charter); to a charter);
o complete and accurate minutes of meetings;
o the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and * complete and accurate minutes of meetings;
o all written contributions from participants that pertain to the
* the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and
* all written contributions from participants that pertain to the
organization's standards-related activity. organization's standards-related activity.
As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards
Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working
Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must
make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and
included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is
responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and
accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that
skipping to change at page 27, line 15 skipping to change at page 27, line 18
directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole
purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
activity and thus are not retrievable except in special activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
circumstances. circumstances.
9. VARYING THE PROCESS 9. VARYING THE PROCESS
This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which
Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product
of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in section
5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to 5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to
be replaced. be replaced.
While, when published, this document represents the community's view While, when published, this document represents the community's view
of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be
met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it 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 cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time
time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a
version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are new version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as
used for any other BCP. are used for any other BCP.
In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures In addition, there may be situations where following the procedures
leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be
situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases
it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described
below. below.
9.1 The Variance Procedure 9.1. The Variance Procedure
Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if
no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc
committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or
advance it within, the standards track even though some of the advance it within, the standards track even though some of the
requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG
may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines may approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines
that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to
outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from
noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising
this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical
merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the
goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance, goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance,
(c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral (c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral
and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's
ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In
skipping to change at page 28, line 29 skipping to change at page 28, line 32
is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request
that it be published as a BCP. that it be published as a BCP.
This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some
provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes
to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP to this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP
process. process.
The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process. The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process.
9.2 Exclusions 9.2. Exclusions
No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt
any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or
consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings
and mailing list discussions. and mailing list discussions.
Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be Specifically, the following sections of this document must not be
subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3 subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3
(first sentence), 6.5 and 9. (first sentence), 6.5 and 9.
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
10.1. General Policy 10.1. General Policy
In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.
10.2 Confidentiality Obligations 10.2. Confidentiality Obligations
No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality
or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part
of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of
any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution. any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.
10.3. Rights and Permissions 10.3. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the
skipping to change at page 29, line 32 skipping to change at page 29, line 32
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he
represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the
contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in
addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the
actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was
made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on
his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and
any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.
l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to (1) Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject
copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may to copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or
be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he may be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization
represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in he represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights
the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, in the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-
royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the
IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license ISOC and the IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.
includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute
contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works
based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the contribution, the license to such derivative works to be of the
license of the original contribution. same scope as the license of the original contribution.
2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty (2) The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty
to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution.
3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and (3) The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and
address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he
represents (if any). represents (if any).
4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge (4) The contributor represents that contribution properly
major contributors. acknowledge major contributors.
5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the (5) The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree
no information in the contribution is confidential and that the that no information in the contribution is confidential and that
ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any the ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose
information in the contribution. any information in the contribution.
6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of (6) The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence
any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the
contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the
contributor. The contributor does not represent that he contributor. The contributor does not represent that he
personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and
intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the
he represents (if any) or third parties. organization he represents (if any) or third parties.
7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the (7) The contributor represents that there are no limits to the
contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and
agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the
contributor. contributor.
By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet (8) By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet
Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open
free access to IETF documents for which license and right have and free access to IETF documents for which license and right
been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this have been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this
section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is
perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
successors or assigns. successors or assigns.
10.3.2. Standards Track Documents 10.3.2. Standards Track Documents
(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary
rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification
the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the on the standards track, and brought to the attention of the
IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the IESG, the IESG shall not advance the specification without
document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or including in the document a note indicating the existence of
claimed rights. Where implementations are required before such rights, or claimed rights. Where implementations are
advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by required before advancement of a specification, only
statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with implementations that have, by statement of the implementors,
any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the taken adequate steps to comply with any such rights, or claimed
purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification. rights, shall be considered for the purpose of showing the
adequacy of the specification.
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the (B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed
copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the
fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no
position on the validity or scope of any such rights. position on the validity or scope of any such rights.
(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the
IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the
of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval
of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any by the IESG of the relevant Internet standards track
party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and specification(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to
distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or implement, use and distribute the technology or works when
distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the
under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable,
The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect non-discriminatory terms. The Working Group proposing the use
to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights
Executive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure are claimed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this
shall not affect advancement of a specification along the effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect
standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a advancement of a specification along the standards track, except
delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The that the IESG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate
results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be
and made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and made available.
the results be included in any RFC published containing the The IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be
specification. included in any RFC published containing the specification.
10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms 10.3.3. Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms
The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a
technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the
normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to
verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated
implementations of the specification that are required to advance implementations of the specification that are required to advance
from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by
different organizations or individuals or if the "significant different organizations or individuals or if the "significant
implementation and successful operational experience" required to implementation and successful operational experience" required to
advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the
assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree,
non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the
Last-Call period. Last-Call period.
10.4. Notices 10.4. Notices
(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: (A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice:
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed
any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license
described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does
under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such
it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to
rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation
rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made
can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be
available for publication and any assurances of licenses to made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a
be made available, or the result of an attempt made general license or permission for the use of such proprietary
to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such rights by implementors or users of this specification can be
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this obtained from the IETF Secretariat."
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat."
(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its (B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any
intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards.
For this purpose, each standards document shall include the For this purpose, each standards document shall include the
following invitation: following invitation: "The IETF invites any interested party to
bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent
"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or technology that may be required to practice this standard.
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director."
required to practice this standard. Please address the
information to the IETF Executive Director."
(C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included (C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included
in all ISOC standards-related documentation: in all ISOC standards-related documentation: "Copyright (C) The
Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
Reserved. and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
This document and translations of it may be copied and and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing it into languages other than English. he limited permissions
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document
as required to translate it into languages other than English. and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
assigns. HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
This document and the information contained herein is provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
(D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of (D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of
proprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track proprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track
document, or the technology described or referenced therein, such document, or the technology described or referenced therein,
document shall contain the following notice: such document shall contain the following notice: "The IETF has
been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in regard
"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained For more information consult the online list of claimed rights."
in this document. For more information consult the online list
of claimed rights."
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11. "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There have been a number of people involved with the development of There have been a number of people involved with the development of
the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years.
The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602
before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors). before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).
Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill
Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions, Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,
to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to
Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their
reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and
to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input
on the final version. on the final version.
In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of
the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various
incarnations of the POISED Working Group. incarnations of the POISED Working Group.
12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS This document is based on RFC 2026 which was authored by Scott O.
Bradner.
Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 12. Security Considerations
13. REFERENCES Security issues are not discussed in this memo. .
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, 13. IANA Considerations
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.
[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for This document does not require any IANA actions.
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, 14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.
[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, IETF Area
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. 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 two Area Directors.
[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, Area Director
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors along with the
IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG).
[6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995. An Internet application used to transfer files in a TCP/IP
network.
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS gopher
An Internet application used to interactively select and retrieve
files in a TCP/IP network.
IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An An appointed group that assists in the management of the IETF
Area is managed by one or two Area Directors. standards process.
Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors
along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG).
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to
transfer files in a TCP/IP network.
gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and
retrieve files in a TCP/IP network.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists
in the management of the IETF standards process.
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.
Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
(see section 6.1.2)
online - Relating to information made available over the Internet. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
When referenced in this document material is said to be online A group comprised of the IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair.
when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using The IESG is responsible for the management, along with the IAB, of
standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or the IETF and is the standards approval board for the IETF.
the WWW.
Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a
specific specification, set of specifications or topic.
15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS interoperable
For the purposes of this document, "interoperable" means to be
able to interoperate over a data communications path.
Scott O. Bradner Last-Call
Harvard University A public comment period used to gage the level of consensus about
Holyoke Center, Room 813 the reasonableness of a proposed standards action. (see section
1350 Mass. Ave. 6.1.2)
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
Phone: +1 617 495 3864 online
EMail: sob@harvard.edu Relating to information made available over the Internet. When
referenced in this document material is said to be online when it
is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using standard
Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or the WWW.
Working Group
A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a specific
specification, set of specifications or topic.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ANSI: American National Standards Institute ANSI: American National Standards Institute
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
AS: Applicability Statement ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
FTP: File Transfer Protocol
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange AS: Applicability Statement
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN FTP: File Transfer Protocol
treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.
IAB: Internet Architecture Board ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization; ITU-T was
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol formerly called CCITT.
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force IAB: Internet Architecture Board
IP: Internet Protocol
IRSG Internet Research Steering Group IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
ISO: International Organization for Standardization IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISOC: Internet Society
MIB: Management Information Base ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
OSI: Open Systems Interconnection
RFC: Request for Comments IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol
TS: Technical Specification IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
WWW: World Wide Web
IP: Internet Protocol
IRSG Internet Research Steering Group
IRTF: Internet Research Task Force
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
ISOC: Internet Society
MIB: Management Information Base
OSI: Open Systems Interconnection
RFC: Request for Comments
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol
TS: Technical Specification
WWW: World Wide Web
References
[STD1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", March
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards>.
[ANSI] ANSI, "Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code
for Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986".
[STD2] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", October
1994, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.
[RFC1543] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1543, October 1993,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1543>.
[RFC1796] Huitema, C., Postel, J., and S. Crocker, "Not All RFCs are
Standards", RFC 1796, DOI 10.17487/RFC1796, April 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1796>.
Author's Address
Subramanian Moonesamy (editor)
Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com
 End of changes. 130 change blocks. 
463 lines changed or deleted 486 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/