rfc2026.txt   draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Bradner procon R. Salz
Request for Comments: 2026 Harvard University Internet-Draft Akamai Technologies
BCP: 9 October 1996 Obsoletes: 2026, 5657, 6410, 7100, 7127, 8789, S. Bradner
Obsoletes: 1602 9282 (if approved) SOBCO
Category: Best Current Practice Updates: 7475 (if approved) 2 February 2026
Intended status: Best Current Practice
The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 Expires: 6 August 2026
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the The Internet Standards Process
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-05
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 This document obsoletes RFC 2026, RFC 5657, RFC 6410, RFC 7100, RFC
7127, RFC 8789, and RFC 9282. It also includes the changes from RFC
7475. If this document and [_2418bis] are published as RFCs, then
taken together the two of them make RFC 7475 obsolete.
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................2 About This Document
1.1 Internet Standards...........................................3
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 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................16
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................17
6.1 Standards Actions...........................................17
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 Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-procon-2026bis/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-procon/2026bis.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 6 August 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Intellectual Property Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Documents related to Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Internet Standard Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Technical Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. The Internet Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1. Proposed Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.2. Internet Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.1. Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.2. Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs . 13
6.2.4. Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. BCP Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. The Internet Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Standards Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.1. Initiation of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.2. IESG Review and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.3. Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Advancing in the Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. Revising a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.4. Retiring a Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. Conflict Resolution and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.5.1. Working Group Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.5.2. Process Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.5.3. Questions of Applicable Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.5.4. Appeals Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. External Standards and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Use of External Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1.1. Incorporation of an Open Standard . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1.2. Incorporation of Other Specifications . . . . . . . . 23
9.1.3. Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Notices and Record Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Varying the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. The Variance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2. Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.1. Working group draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.2. Individual draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
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 organized and managed by the IETF, an
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by entity of the Internet Society (ISOC).
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG).
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 1.1. Terminology
Readers are expected to be familiar with the various entities
involved in the Internet Standards Process, as described in
[RFC9281].
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 process described here only applies to the IETF RFC stream. See
[RFC4844] for the definition of the streams and [RFC5742] for a
description of the IESG responsibilities related to those streams.
The goals of the Internet Standards Process are: The goals of the Internet Standards Process are:
o technical excellence;
o prior implementation and testing;
o clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;
o openness and fairness; and
o timeliness.
* Technical excellence;
* Prior implementation and testing;
* 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 2.1. Intellectual Property Requirements
Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the Internet All documents used in the Internet Standards Process must meet the
Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of Internet conditions specified in [BCP78] and [BCP79].
standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet standards
specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current Practice
RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for Internet
standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally-
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet
Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for notices
and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to allow
one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document
Section 10 presents the rules that are required to protect
intellectual property rights in the context of the development and
use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments of
some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12
notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document.
Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14
contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document.
Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix A
contains a list of frequently-used acronyms.
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 3. Organization of This Document
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs) Section 4 describes the publications and archives of the Internet
Standards Process. Section 5 describes the types of Internet
standard specifications. Section 6 describes the Internet standards
specifications track. Section 7 describes Best Current Practice
RFCs. Section 8 describes the process and rules for Internet
standardization. Section 9 specifies the way in which externally-
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by
other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet
Standards Process. Section 10 describes the requirements for notices
and record keeping, and Section 11 defines a variance process to
allow one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this
document.
Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification 4. Documents related to Internet Standards
is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document
series. This archival series is the official publication channel for
Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,
and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of
Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other
Internet document-retrieval systems.
The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of 4.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs)
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see
Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC
publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the
general direction of the IAB.
The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5]. Each distinct version of an Internet Standards specification is
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available published as an RFC on the IETF stream. RFCs can be obtained from a
in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material number of Internet hosts using standard Internet applications such as
(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII the WWW.
version, and it may be formatted differently.
********************************************************* RFCs cover a wide range of topics in addition to Internet Standards,
* * from early discussion of new research concepts to status memos about
* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track * the Internet. For information about RFC publication, see [RFC9280].
* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *
* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *
* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *
* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *
* *
*********************************************************
The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is The style guide for writing an RFC is [RFC7322]. The default input
summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official format is [RFCXML], RFCs are available in multiple formats as
Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and described in [RFCPAGE].
other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
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 "STD xxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
series. (see section 4.1.3) series (see Section 6.1.2). The status of Internet protocol and
service specifications is available from the RFC Index
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.txt) in the RFC repository.
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 processes. These RFCs form the
the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the specification has been adopted as a Best Current Practice (BCP); it
additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place is given the additional label "BCP xxx", but it keeps its RFC number
in the RFC series. (see section 5) and its place in the RFC series. (see Section 7)
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 Publication Center (RPC) in consultation with the IESG
(see Section 6.2).
******************************************************** In addition, not all RFCs are standards track documents, and not all
* * standards track documents reach the level of Internet Standard. In
* It is important to remember that not all RFCs * the same way, not all RFCs which describe current practices have been
* are standards track documents, and that not all * given the review and approval to become BCPs. See [RFC1796] for
* standards track documents reach the level of * further information.
* Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs *
* which describe current practices have been given *
* the review and approval to become BCPs. See *
* RFC-1796 [6] for further information. *
* *
********************************************************
2.2 Internet-Drafts 4.2. 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 to the public for review and comment by
placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is placing them in the Internet-Drafts collection [IDPAGE]. This makes
replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving an evolving working document readily available to a wide audience,
working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating 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 A Internet-Draft that has been not been changed for more than six
unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months months will be marked as Expired and may be removed from some views
without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is of the collection. At any time, an Internet-Draft may be replaced by
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-
Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same month timeout period.
specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.
An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; The format of an Internet-Draft is mostly the same as for an
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in [RFC7322], Section 4. Full details, including the naming conventions
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are and required contents, can be found at [REQPAGE]. Of particular
subject to change or removal at any time. importance is the legal boilerplate and copyright as described in the
"Copyright Notice" section of that page.
******************************************************** Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or
* * removal at any time. They are working documents and have no official
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * standards status whatsoever. They may, eventually, turn into a
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * standards-track document or they may sink from sight. An Internet-
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * Draft is not a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications
* with an Internet-Draft. * are published through the RFC mechanism described in the previous
* * section.
********************************************************
Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification It is acceptable to reference an Internet-Draft that may reasonably
that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the be expected to be published as an RFC using the phrase "Work in
phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. Progress". This may also be done in a standards track document
This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long itself as long as the specification in which the reference is made
as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a would stand as a complete and understandable document with or without
complete and understandable document with or without the reference to the reference to the "Work in Progress".
the "Work in Progress".
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 5. 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) 5.1. Technical Specification
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) 5.2. Applicability Statement
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 9.
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
of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see
3.3). Section 5.3).
An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted
"domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers, terminal
servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram- servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-
based database servers. based database servers.
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 6.1).
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
the Standard level.
3.3 Requirement Levels 5.3. 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 * Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by the
the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example, IP
IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the and the Internet Control Message Protocl (ICMP) must be
TCP/IP Protocol Suite. implemented by all Internet systems using the TCP/IP Protocol
Suite.
(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not * 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
accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain of
of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to 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 TSs
in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is in their products, and should omit them only if the omission is
justified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET justified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET
protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit protocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit
from remote access. from remote access.
(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional * 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 no
creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a particular vendor
particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user may decide to implement it, or a particular user may decide that
may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For it is a necessity in a specific environment.
example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an
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 6.1, 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 * 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 * 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
of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic 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 6. The Internet Standards Track
requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more
detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found
in appropriate ASs.
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" and "Internet Standard"
"Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way in -- are defined and discussed in Section 6.1. The way in which
which specifications move along the standards track is described in specifications move along the standards track is described in
section 6. Section 8.
There used to be a status that came between Proposed Standard and
Internet Standard called "Draft Standard." As of the writing of this
document, there still exist some RFCs at that status. Documents at
Draft Standard may be advanced to Internet Standard, either via the
procedure described in Section 8 (if they meet the requirements of
Section 6.1.1) or with the consent of the IESG. The IESG may also
decide to remove the Draft Standard status from a document and mark
it as either Historic or Proposed Standard.
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 6.2 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 Standards track specifications normally must not depend on either
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level, or on non standards track specifications except for referenced
specifications from other standards bodies (see Section 9).
6.1. 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 6.1.1. 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 stable, has resolved known
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received design choices, has received significant community review, and
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
before it advances.
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation. designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet. Internet.
A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may respect to the requirements placed upon it. Proposed Standards are
waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature at scale is gathered.
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended.
4.1.2 Draft Standard
A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For the
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology
is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.
The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
specification. In cases in which one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed.
The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet
Standard status along with documentation about testing of the
interoperation of these implementations. The documentation must
include information about the support of each of the individual
options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the
Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)
A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or
more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate
unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production
environments.
A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the IETF may occasionally
and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems choose to publish as Proposed Standard a document that contains areas
encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to of known limitations or challenges. In such cases, any known issues
deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive with the document will be clearly and prominently communicated in the
environment. document, for example, in the abstract, the introduction, or a
separate section or statement.
4.1.3 Internet Standard 6.1.2. 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 is characterized by a
referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that
technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet Internet community.
community.
A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a A specification that reaches the status of Internet Standard is
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number. assigned a number in the STD subseries while retaining its RFC
number.
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels 6.2. 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 Alternate streams [RFC8729], Section 5.1 may also use the maturity
levels described here.
6.2.1. 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. An Experimental
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been specification may be the output of an organized Internet research
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An effort (e.g., a Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force),
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet an IETF Working Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
4.2.2 Informational 6.2.2. 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. The Informational designation
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational is intended to provide for the timely publication of a very broad
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a range of responsible informational documents from many sources.
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
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
publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
RFCs.
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
contribution to the Internet Standards Process.
If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the 6.2.3. Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.
Documents with the Experimental or Informational maturity level may
be published using the process and workflow described here.
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 [_2418bis] go through IESG review. The review is
the process described in section 6.1.1. initiated using the process described in Section 8.1.1.
4.2.4 Historic The final assignment of maturity level, as with Internet Standard, is
determined by the IESG.
6.2.4. 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 7. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs
other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)
5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
to perform some operations or IETF process function. to perform some operations.
Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with Historically Internet Standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However, computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
service requires that the operators and administrators of the service requires that the operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
for consensus building. for consensus building.
While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are Finally, the BCP subseries may be used to document the operation of
composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the the IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF
technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities Standards Process and is published as a BCP.
themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders
in the Internet technical community, these entities should have an
outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to
raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate their
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals into
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the
community's view of that issue.
Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the
IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards
Process and is published as a BCP.
5.1 BCP Review Process 7.1. 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 two-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 8.1.1), 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 Section 8.1, and Section 8.4 of
document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures this document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the
in section 6.5. procedures in Section 8.5.
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 subseries while
retaining its RFC number(s). retaining its RFC number(s).
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS 8. The Internet Standards Process
The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of
the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the
standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification standards track or the movement of a standards-track specification
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 6) 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 8.1. 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 8.1.1. 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 4.2) 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 For classification as an Internet Standard, the request for
reclassification must include an explanation of how the following
criteria have been met:
1. There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
Although not required by the Internet Standards Process,
[RFC5657] can be helpful to conduct interoperability testing.
2. There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
3. There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
increase implementation complexity.
4. If the technology required to implement the specification
requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
8.1.2. 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 8.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in the recommended action (see Section 6.1 and Section 6.2), and shall
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity in addition determine whether or not the technical quality and
of the specification is consistent with that expected for the clarity 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.
The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to
consider the specification for publication in a different maturity
level than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the
Last- Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's
view. The IESG could also decide to change the publication maturity
level based on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would
result in a specification being published at a "higher" level than
the original Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued
indicating the IESG recommendation. In addition, in case of
significant controvery in response to the Last-Call, The IESG may
decide to refer the document back to the Working Group, the authors,
or hold the document for the creation of a new Working Group.
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
the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact
on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may, on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,
at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the
specification. specification.
The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG
consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the
general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall be
via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a
Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as
directed in the Last-Call announcement. directed in the Last-Call announcement.
The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in For a Proposed Standard, the Last-Call period shall be no shorter
those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by than two weeks except in those cases where the proposed standards
an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no action was not initiated by an IETF Working Group, such as when an AD
shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community sponsors a draft [ADSPONSOR], in which case the Last-Call period
interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may shall be no shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the
decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a community interest would be served by allowing more time for comment,
current Last-Call period. it may decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen
a current Last-Call period.
The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the For an Internet Standard, the IESG will perform a review and
specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to consideration of any errata that have been filed. If they do not
consider the specification for publication in a different category believe any of these should hold up the advancement, then the IESG,
than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, informs the
Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. community of their intent to advance a document from Proposed
The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based Standard to Internet Standard.
on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
specification being published at a "higher" level than the original If there is consensus for reclassification, the RFC will be
Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the reclassified with or without publication of a new RFC.
IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
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 In no event shall a document be published on the IETF Stream without
IETF consensus.
8.1.3. 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 8.2. Advancing in the Standards Track
appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This
shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
actions.
The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
protocol and service specifications.
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track
The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each action The procedure described in Section 8.1 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 months. This minimum period is intended to ensure adequate
opportunity for community review without severely impacting
A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least timeliness. The interval shall be measured from the date of
four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, publication of the corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not
whichever comes later. result in RFC publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG
approval of the action.
These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for
community review without severely impacting timeliness. These
intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the
corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the
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 RPC may be asked to republish the RFC (with a new
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-
time-at-level clock. at-level clock.
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
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
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
6.3 Revising a Standard 8.3. 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 5.2).
6.4 Retiring a Standard 8.4. 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 8.5. 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, where appropriate,
section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with open discussion. This section specifies the procedures that shall be
Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal followed to deal with Internet Standards Process issues that cannot
processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards be resolved through the normal processes whereby IETF Working Groups
Process participants ordinarily reach consensus. and other Internet Standards Process participants ordinarily reach
consensus.
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes 8.5.1. 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
Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.
The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute. The treatment of any particular disagreement may be delegated to one
of more Area Director(s) in this or other areas where necessary. The
Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of
the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a
manner of its own choosing. manner of its own choosing.
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 Processes have been followed and with
respect to all questions of technical merit. respect to all questions of technical merit.
6.5.2 Process Failures 8.5.2. 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 IESG 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 Processes have been followed.
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure 8.5.3. 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 ISOC Board of Trustees. The
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge President of the ISOC shall acknowledge such an appeal within two
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the petitioner
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the appeal. The
Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own choosing
situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on 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 8.5.4. 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. Note that this does not require that all discussions
be held in public forums.
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 forgoes
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 9. 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 * 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 Technical
ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service Specifications defined here. National and international groups
specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to
defined here. National and international groups also publish Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-
"implementors' agreements" that are analogous to Applicability specific detail concerned with the practical application of their
Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail standards. All of these are considered to be "open external
concerned with the practical application of their standards. All standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.
of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the
purposes of the Internet Standards Process.
(2) Other Specifications
Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used * 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 9.1. 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 9.1.1. 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 "US-ASCII"
Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available [US-ASCII]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
online. available without restriction or undue fee using standard Internet
applications such as the WWW.
7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications 9.1.2. 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 2.1. 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 9.1.3. 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 2.1, 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 10. Notices and Record Keeping
Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to
the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part
of the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the of the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the
organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet organizations involved in the development and approval of Internet
Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working
Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees. Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made
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 LLC or its designees.
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working Also, the Working Group chair is responsible for providing complete
Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must and accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts
make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and that have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts
included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is directories shall be archived for the sole purpose of preserving an
responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and historical record of Internet Standards Process activity and thus are
accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that not retrievable except in special circumstances.
have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts
directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole
purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards
activity and thus are not retrievable except in special
circumstances.
9. VARYING THE PROCESS 11. 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
5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to Section 7.) It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely
be replaced. itself to 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 11.1. 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 19 skipping to change at page 25, line 29
variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including
consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph. consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.
The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG
shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to
allow for community comment upon the proposal. allow for community comment upon the proposal.
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 proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance
is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request is approved it shall be forwarded to the RPC with a request that it
that it be published as a BCP. 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 waiver 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 8.5 applies to this process.
9.2 Exclusions 11.2. 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: Section 7.1, Section 8.1, Section 8.1.1 (first
(first sentence), 6.5 and 9. paragraph), Section 8.1.2, Section 8.3 (first sentence), Section 8.5
and Section 11.
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 12. Security Considerations
10.1. General Policy Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the 13. IANA Considerations
intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.
10.2 Confidentiality Obligations This document has no IANA actions.
No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality 14. Change Log
or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part
of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of
any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.
10.3. Rights and Permissions 14.1. Working group draft
In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in * Draft 0: Adopted by PROCON WG.
various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the
dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand
any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions.
10.3.1. All Contributions * Draft 1: Various GitHub fixes. Improve 7475 obsolescence text.
Add wording about RFC style, output formats, default input; remove
text about standards requiring ASCII. Unindent or remove text
blocks. Discuss legacy "Draft Standard" documents. Tighten IPR
requirements on Informational. Add WG changelog section.
By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the * Draft 2: Fix link to repository, tweak wording about RFC style and
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions formats. Clarify that not all discussions must be public.
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
contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in
addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the
actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was
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
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 * Draft 3: Refer to BCP78 for definition of "Contribution."
copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may Clearify procedures for Experimental and Informational. Clarify
be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he ADs can delegate handlling an appeal. Add AD sponsor as an
represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in example of non-WG initiation. IETF LLC maintains mailing lists
the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, anad public records. Renamed IETF Trust to IETF Intellectual
royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the Property Management Corporation. Various minor editorial/wording
IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license changes.
includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
license of the original contribution.
2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty * Draft 4: Remove terminology section; use references on first use
to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. when needed. Consistency around "Internet Standards Process" term
use and capitalization. Change "RFC Editor" to "RFC Publication
Center." Put punctuation inside the quotation where necessary.
Avoid "Internet Standards-related" construction Use subseries
consistently for BCP/STD. Update BCP definition and explain those
that affect the standards process are published on the IETF
stream.
3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and * Draft 5: Update Internet-Draft section (with Brian Carpenter).
address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he Remove out-of-scope BCP sentence.
represents (if any).
4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge 14.2. Individual draft
major contributors.
5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the * Draft 0: Translated the nroff source of RFC 2026 into markdown.
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that The notices in the document at section 12.4 were prefaced with
no information in the contribution is confidential and that the "THIS TEXT ADDED TO PASS THE IDNITS CHECKS" so that the draft
ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any could be published. The copyright notice is changed to the
information in the contribution. current one. Because of this and other boilerplate, some section
numbers differ from the original RFC.
6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of * Draft 1: Add Scott Bradner as co-author. Add Note. Alphabetize
any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the terminology. Minor wording tweaks.
contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the
contributor. The contributor does not represent that he
personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and
intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization
he represents (if any) or third parties.
7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the * Draft 2: Clarified Note about the RFC's. More word tweaks.
contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and Remove bulk of text from the Notices, and point to RFC 2026, to
agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the avoid confusion and pass the idnits checks.
contributor.
By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet * Draft 3: Incorporated RFC 5378.
Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and
free access to IETF documents for which license and right have
been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this
section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is
perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
successors or assigns.
10.3.2. Standards Track Documents * Draft 4: Updated terminology and removed some obvious or old
terms. In some cases this meant minor editorial changes in the
body text.
(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary * Draft 5: Add text about RFC 5657 and errata to the intro Note.
rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on Incorporate RFC 5742.
the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the
IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the
document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or
claimed rights. Where implementations are required before
advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by
statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with
any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the
purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification.
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed
copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the
fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no
position on the validity or scope of any such rights.
(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the * Draft 6: Incorporate RFC 6410. Moved some text around to make the
IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant new text flow a bit better.
of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG
of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any
party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and
distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or
distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s)
under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.
The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect
to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF
Executive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure
shall not affect advancement of a specification along the
standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a
delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The
results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director,
and made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of
the results be included in any RFC published containing the
specification.
10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms * Draft 7: Incorporate RFC 7100, RFC 7475, and RFC 9282. Add
mention of the "rfcindex.txt" file.
The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance * Draft 8: Incorporate RFC 7127.
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a
technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the
normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to
verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated
implementations of the specification that are required to advance
from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by
different organizations or individuals or if the "significant
implementation and successful operational experience" required to
advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the
assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree,
non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the
Last-Call period.
10.4. Notices * Draft 9: Incorporate RFC 8789. Updates (not obsoletes) RFC 5378,
RFC 5657, and RFC 7475.
(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice: * Draft 10: Incorporate RFC 8179.
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of * Draft 11: Remove IPR section (RFC 5378 and RFC 8179) and add a
any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed pointer to those RFCs instead.
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; neither does
it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such
rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to
rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation
can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made
available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
be made available, or the result of an attempt made
to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat."
(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its * Draft 12: Addressed the editorial issues found by the following
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any verified errata: 523, 524, 1622, 3014, 3095, and 7181. Errata
intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. 3095 was marked as editorial, although it seems to be a semantic
For this purpose, each standards document shall include the change but one that properly reflects consensus. The following
following invitation: errata were closed by the conversion to markdown and associated
tooling, as they do the right thing: 6658, 6659, 6661, 6671, and
6669.
"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its * Draft 13: Address some pre-adoption issues raised on the WG
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or mailing list.
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be
required to practice this standard. Please address the
information to the IETF Executive Director."
(C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included 15. References
in all ISOC standards-related documentation:
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights 15.1. Normative References
Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and [BCP78] Best Current Practice 78,
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
assigns. DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
This document and the information contained herein is provided [BCP79] Best Current Practice 79,
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
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 Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
proprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
document, or the technology described or referenced therein, such DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
document shall contain the following notice: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights [RFC1796] Huitema, C., Postel, J., and S. Crocker, "Not All RFCs are
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained Standards", RFC 1796, DOI 10.17487/RFC1796, April 1995,
in this document. For more information consult the online list <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1796>.
of claimed rights."
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322>.
There have been a number of people involved with the development of [RFC9281] Salz, R., "Entities Involved in the IETF Standards
the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years. Process", BCP 11, RFC 9281, DOI 10.17487/RFC9281, June
The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9281>.
before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).
Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill
Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,
to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to
Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their
reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and
to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input
on the final version.
In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of 15.2. Informative References
the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various
incarnations of the POISED Working Group.
12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS [ADSPONSOR]
"Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents", March
2007, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-
guidance-on-area-director-sponsoring-of-documents-
20070320/>.
Security issues are not discussed in this memo. [IDPAGE] "Internet-Drafts", n.d.,
<https://www.ietf.org/participate/ids/>.
13. REFERENCES [REQPAGE] "Required Content", June 2025,
<https://authors.ietf.org/en/required-content>.
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996. DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1311>.
[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.
[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor",
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4844>.
[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, [RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992. and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5657>.
[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993. Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5742>.
[6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs are [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995. RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>.
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS [RFC9280] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)",
RFC 9280, DOI 10.17487/RFC9280, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280>.
IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists [RFCPAGE] "About RFCs", n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/process/rfcs/>.
of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An
Area is managed by one or two Area Directors.
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. [RFCXML] "RFCXML overview and background", n.d.,
When referenced in this document material is said to be online <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-overview>.
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.
15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS [US-ASCII] ANSI, "Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code
for Information Interchange", March 1986. ANSI X3.4-1986
Scott O. Bradner [_2418bis] Salz, R., Schinazi, D., and S. O. Bradner, "IETF Working
Harvard University Group Guidelines and Procedures", Work in Progress,
Holyoke Center, Room 813 Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-procon-2418bis-01, 15 October
1350 Mass. Ave. 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
Cambridge, MA 02138 procon-2418bis-01>.
USA
Phone: +1 617 495 3864 Acknowledgments
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS We gratefully acknowledge those who have contributed to the
development of IETF RFC's and the processes that create both the
content and documents. In particular, we thank the authors of all
the documents that updated [RFC2026].
ANSI: American National Standards Institute We also thank Sandy Ginoza of the Secretariat for sending all the
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency original RFC sources, and John Klensin for his support and
AS: Applicability Statement cooperation during the process of creating this document.
FTP: File Transfer Protocol
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange Authors' Addresses
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN Rich Salz
treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT. Akamai Technologies
IAB: Internet Architecture Board Email: rsalz@akamai.com
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Scott Bradner
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol SOBCO
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group Email: sob@sobco.com
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
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
 End of changes. 206 change blocks. 
862 lines changed or deleted 671 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/