💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc7127.txt captured on 2022-01-08 at 15:58:43.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) O. Kolkman
Request for Comments: 7127 NLnet Labs
BCP: 9 S. Bradner
Updates: 2026 Harvard University
Category: Best Current Practice S. Turner
ISSN: 2070-1721 IECA, Inc.
January 2014
Characterization of Proposed Standards
Abstract
RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and
characterizes the maturity level of those documents. This document
updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate
characterization of Proposed Standards.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It has been approved for publication by the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is
available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IETF Review of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Characterization of Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 3
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026], the IETF
has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs, and thus
Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 no longer accurately describes IETF
Proposed Standards.
This document only updates the characterization of Proposed Standards
from Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 and does not speak to or alter the
procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from RFC
2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410]. For complete understanding of the
requirements for standardization, those documents should be read in
conjunction with this document.
2. IETF Review of Proposed Standards
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the Standards Track at the "Proposed Standard"
level.
Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications
would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard, then finally
to Internet Standard (see Section 6 of RFC 2026). For a number of
reasons this progression is not common. Many Proposed Standards are
actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable
protocols. This proves the point that the community often deems it
unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard. Actual
practice has been that full progression through the sequence of
standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF
protocols remain at Proposed Standard. Over time, the IETF has
developed a more extensive review process.
Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014
IETF Proposed Standards documents have been subject to open
development and review by the Internet technical community, generally
including a number of formal cross-discipline reviews and,
specifically, a security review. This is further strengthened in
many cases by implementations and even the presence of interoperable
code. Hence, IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they
are ready for the usual market-based product development and
deployment efforts into the Internet.
3. Characterization of Specifications
The text in the following section replaces Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026.
Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet
Standards from Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2026 and is provided for
convenient reference. The text only provides the characterization;
process issues for Draft and Internet Standards are described in RFC
2026 and its updates, specifically RFC 6410.
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
level.
A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
design choices, has received significant community review, and
appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
respect to the requirements placed upon it. Proposed Standards are
of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
at scale is gathered.
Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards
A specification for which significant implementation and successful
operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
community.
4. Further Considerations
Occasionally, the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges. In
such cases, any known issues with the document will be clearly and
prominently communicated in the document, for example, in the
abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
6. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011.
Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 7127 Characterization of Proposed Standards January 2014
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone
session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks to, in
alphabetical order, Jari Arkko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Randy
Bush, Benoit Claise, Dave Cridland, Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel,
Stephen Farrell, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Pete Resnick for
motivation, input, and review.
John Klensin and Dave Crocker have provided significant
contributions.
Authors' Addresses
Olaf Kolkman
Stichting NLnet Labs
Science Park 400
Amsterdam 1098 XH
The Netherlands
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Scott O. Bradner
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation and Architecture
8 Story St., Room 5014
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States of America
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
URI: http://www.harvard.edu/huit
Sean Turner
IECA, Inc.
EMail: turners@ieca.com
Kolkman, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]