Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        Y. ShefferRequest for Comments: 7942                                        IntuitBCP: 205                                                       A. FarrelObsoletes:6982                                         Juniper NetworksCategory: Best Current Practice                                July 2016ISSN: 2070-1721Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status SectionAbstract   This document describes a simple process that allows authors of   Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by   including an Implementation Status section.  This will allow   reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents   that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of   valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented   protocols more mature.   This process is not mandatory.  Authors of Internet-Drafts are   encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and   working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all   of their protocol specifications.  This document obsoletesRFC 6982,   advancing it to a Best Current Practice.Status of This Memo   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the Internet   Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on BCPs is   available inSection 2 of RFC 7841.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  The "Implementation Status" Section . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.1.  Introductory Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.  Alternative Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.  Benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.  Introduction   Most IETF participants are familiar with the saying "rough consensus   and running code" [Tao] and can identify with its pragmatic approach.   However, implementation is not a requirement for publication as an   RFC.  There are many examples of Internet-Drafts containing protocol   specifications that have gone through to publication as Proposed   Standard RFCs without implementation.  Some of them may never get   implemented.   Over time, a variety of policies have been applied within the IETF to   consider running code.  In the Routing Area, it used to be a   requirement that one or more implementations must exist before an   Internet-Draft could be published as a Proposed Standard RFC   [RFC1264].  That RFC was later obsoleted and the requirement for   implementation was lifted, but each working group was given the   authority to impose its own implementation requirements [RFC4794] and   at least one working group, Inter-Domain Routing (IDR), continues to   require two independent implementations.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   The hypothesis behind the current document is that there are benefits   to the IETF standardization process of producing implementations of   protocol specifications before publication as RFCs.  These benefits,   which include determining that the specification is comprehensible   and that there is sufficient interest to implement, are further   discussed inSection 4.   This document describes a simple mechanism that allows authors of   Internet-Drafts to record and publicize the status of known   implementations by including an Implementation Status section.  The   document defines (quite informally) the contents of this section to   ensure that the relevant information is included.  This will allow   reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents   that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of   valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented   protocols more mature.   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as   they see fit, but one result might be the preferential treatment of   documents, resulting in them being processed more rapidly.  We   recommend that the Implementation Status section should be removed   from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.  As a result,   we do not envisage changes to this section after approval of the   document for publication, e.g., the RFC errata process does not   apply.   This process is not mandatory.  Authors of Internet-Drafts are   encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and   working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all   of their protocol specifications.   The scope of this process is all Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that contain   implementable specifications, whether produced within IETF working   groups or outside working groups but intended for IETF consensus.   I-Ds published on the Independent Stream are explicitly out of scope.   It is expected that the greatest benefit will be seen with Standards   Track documents developed within working groups.   This process was initially proposed as an experiment in [RFC6982].   That document is now obsoleted, and the process advanced to Best   Current Practice.   Historically, there have been other ways for experience based on   protocol implementations to feed back into the IETF process.  Many   "implementation reports" have been published, in some cases several   years after the protocol was originally published.  ProvidingSheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   feedback to published protocols is a related goal, but different from   the current document's focus.  Two notable examples of published   implementation reports are [RFC1369] and [RFC5080].2.  The "Implementation Status" Section   Each Internet-Draft may contain a section entitled "Implementation   Status".  This section, if it appears, should be located just before   the "Security Considerations" section and contain, for each existing   implementation, some or all of the following:   -  The organization responsible for the implementation, if any.   -  The implementation's name and/or a link to a web page where the      implementation or a description of it can be found.   -  A brief general description.   -  The implementation's level of maturity: research, prototype,      alpha, beta, production, widely used, etc.   -  Coverage: which parts of the protocol specification are      implemented.   -  Version compatibility: what version/versions of the Internet-Draft      are known to be implemented.   -  Licensing: the terms under which the implementation can be used.      For example: proprietary, royalty licensing, freely distributable      with acknowledgement (BSD style), freely distributable with      requirement to redistribute source (General Public License (GPL)      style), and other (specify).   -  Implementation experience: any useful information the implementers      want to share with the community.   -  Contact information: ideally a person's name and email address,      but possibly just a URL or mailing list.   -  The date when information about this particular implementation was      last updated.   In addition, this section can contain information about the   interoperability of any or all of the implementations, including   references to test-case descriptions and interoperability reports,   when such exist.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   Working group chairs and area directors (ADs) are requested to ensure   that this section is not used as a marketing venue for specific   implementations.   Since this information is necessarily time dependent, it is   inappropriate for inclusion in a published RFC.  The authors should   include a note to the RFC Editor requesting that the section be   removed before publication.2.1.  Introductory Text   The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation   Status section:     This section records the status of known implementations of the     protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of     this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described inRFC 7942.  The description of implementations in this section is     intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in     progressing drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any     individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the     IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the     information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.     This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a     catalog of available implementations or their features.  Readers     are advised to note that other implementations may exist.     According toRFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working     groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the     benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable     experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented     protocols more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups     to use this information as they see fit".   Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of   this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before   publication, as well as the reference toRFC 7942.3.  Alternative Formats   Sometimes it can be advantageous to publish the implementation status   separately from the base Internet-Draft, e.g., on the IETF wiki:   -  When the Implementation Status section becomes too large to be      conveniently managed within the document.   -  When a working group decides to have implementors, rather than      authors, keep the status of their implementations current.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   -  When a working group already maintains an active wiki and prefers      to use it for this purpose.   -  If the working group decides that the information is still      valuable (and needs to be kept current) after the I-D is published      as an RFC, and the Implementation Status section had been removed      from it.   It is highly desirable for all readers of the Internet-Draft to be   made aware of this information.  Initially, this can be done by   replacing the Implementation Status section's contents with a URL   pointing to the wiki.  Later, the IETF Tools may support this   functionality, e.g., by including such a link in the HTML file of the   document, similar to the IPR link.   If the implementation status is published separately from the I-D,   then this information needs to be openly available without requiring   authentication, registration, or access controls if it is to have any   useful effects.4.  Benefits   Publishing the information about implementations provides the working   group with several benefits:   -  Working group members, chairs, and ADs may use the information      provided to help prioritize the progress of I-Ds, e.g., when there      are several competing proposals to solve a particular problem.   -  Similarly, the information is useful when deciding whether the      document should be progressed on a different track (individual      submission, Experimental, etc.).   -  Making this information public and an explicit part of WG      deliberations will motivate participants to implement protocol      proposals, which in turn helps in discovering protocol flaws at an      early stage.   -  Other participants can use the software to evaluate the usefulness      of protocol features, its correctness (to some degree), and other      properties, such as resilience and scalability.   -  WG members may choose to perform interoperability testing with      known implementations, especially when they are publicly      available.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   -  In the case of open source, people may want to study the code to      better understand the protocol and its limitations, determine if      the implementation matches the protocol specification, and whether      the protocol specification has omissions or ambiguities.   -  And lastly, some protocol features may be hard to understand, and      for such features, the mere assurance that they can be implemented      is beneficial.  We note though that code should never be used in      lieu of a clear specification.   We do not specify here whether and to what degree working groups are   expected to prefer proposals that have "running code" associated with   them, over others that do not.   Working group chairs are invited to suggest this mechanism to   document editors in their working groups, and to draw the attention   of their working group participants to Implementation Status sections   where they exist.5.  Security Considerations   This is a process document; therefore, it does not have a direct   effect on the security of any particular IETF protocol.  However,   better-reviewed protocols are likely to also be more secure.6.  Informative References   [RFC1264]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet              Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria",RFC 1264,              DOI 10.17487/RFC1264, October 1991,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1264>.   [RFC1369]  Kastenholz, F., "Implementation Notes and Experience for              the Internet Ethernet MIB",RFC 1369,              DOI 10.17487/RFC1369, October 1992,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1369>.   [RFC4794]  Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete",RFC 4794,              DOI 10.17487/RFC4794, December 2006,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4794>.   [RFC5080]  Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication              Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and              Suggested Fixes",RFC 5080, DOI 10.17487/RFC5080, December              2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5080>.Sheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]

RFC 7942                      Running Code                     July 2016   [RFC6982]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running              Code: The Implementation Status Section",RFC 6982,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.   [Tao]      Hoffman, P., Ed., "The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to              the Internet Engineering Task Force", 2012,              <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.Acknowledgements   We would like to thank Stephen Farrell, who reawakened community   interest in this topic.  Several reviewers provided important input,   including Loa Andersson, Dave Crocker, Ned Freed, Joel M. Halpern,   Christer Holmberg, Denis Ovsienko, and Curtis Villamizar.   This document was originally prepared using the lyx2rfc tool, and we   would like to thank Nico Williams, its author.Authors' Addresses   Yaron Sheffer   Intuit   Email: yaronf.ietf@gmail.com   Adrian Farrel   Juniper Networks   Email: adrian@olddog.co.ukSheffer & Farrel          Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]