Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                          Internet Activities BoardRequest for Comments: 1310                           Lyman Chapin, Chair                                                              March 1992The Internet Standards ProcessStatus of this Memo   This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating   and documenting Internet Standards.  Distribution of this memo is   unlimited.TABLE OF CONTENTS1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................21.1. Internet Standards .......................................21.2. Organization .............................................32.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ...............................42.1. Introduction .............................................42.2. The Internet Standards Track .............................52.3. Requests for Comments (RFCs) .............................52.4. Internet Drafts ..........................................62.5. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................72.6. Review and Approval ......................................82.7. Entering the Standards Track .............................92.8. Advancing in the Standards Track .........................92.9. Revising a Standard ......................................103.  NOMENCLATURE .................................................103.1  Types of Specifications ..................................103.2  Standards Track Maturity Levels ..........................123.3  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ......................133.4  Requirement Levels .......................................144.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................155.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS .................................176.  PATENT POLICY ................................................176.1  Statement from Patent Holder .............................186.2  Record of Statement ......................................186.3  Notice ...................................................186.4  Identifying Patents ......................................197.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES ...............................19   APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .............................................20   APPENDIX B: UNRESOLVED ISSUES ....................................21   Security Considerations ..........................................23   Author's Address .................................................23IAB                                                             [Page 1]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 19921.  INTRODUCTION   1.1  Internet Standards      This memo documents the process currently used for the      standardization of Internet protocols and procedures.      The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of      autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host      communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and      procedures defined by Internet Standards.  There are also many      isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, that      are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.      The architecture and technical specifications of the Internet are      the result of numerous research and development activities      conducted over a period of two decades, performed by the network      R&D community, by service and equipment vendors, and by government      agencies around the world.      In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,      independent, and interoperable implementations with operational      experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably      useful in some or all parts of the Internet.      The principal set of Internet Standards is commonly known as the      "TCP/IP protocol suite".  As the Internet evolves, new protocols      and services, in particular those for Open Systems Interconnection      (OSI), have been and will be deployed in traditional TCP/IP      environments, leading to an Internet that supports multiple      protocol suites.  This document concerns all protocols,      procedures, and conventions used in the Internet, not just the      TCP/IP protocols.      In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is      straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development      and several iterations of review by the Internet community and      perhaps revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard      by the appropriate body (see below), and is published.      In practice, the process is somewhat more complicated, due to (1)      the number and type of possible sources for specifications; (2)      the need to prepare and revise a specification in a manner that      preserves the interests of all of the affected parties;  (3) the      importance of establishing widespread community agreement on its      technical content; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the      utility of a particular specification for the Internet community.IAB                                                             [Page 2]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      Some specifications that are candidates for Internet      standardization are the result of organized efforts directly      within the Internet community; others are the result of work that      was not originally organized as an Internet effort, but which was      later adopted by the Internet community.      From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to      remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new      requirements and technology into the design and implementation of      the global Internet.  Users of the Internet and providers of the      equipment, software, and services that support it should      anticipate and embrace this adaptability as a major tenet of      Internet philosophy.      The procedures described in this document are the result of three      years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and      increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.      Comments and suggestions are invited for improvement in these      procedures.   1.2  Organization      The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the primary coordinating      committee for Internet design, engineering, and management [1].      The IAB has delegated to its Internet Engineering Task Force      (IETF) the primary responsibility for the development and review      of potential Internet Standards from all sources.  The IETF forms      Working Groups to pursue specific technical issues, frequently      resulting in the development of one or more specifications that      are proposed for adoption as Internet Standards.      Final decisions on Internet standardization are made by the IAB,      based upon recommendations from the Internet Engineering Steering      Group (IESG), the leadership body of the IETF.  IETF Working      Groups are organized into areas, and each area is coordinated by      an Area Director.  The Area Directors and the IETF Chairman are      included in the IESG.      Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is      urged to attend IETF meetings and to participate actively in one      or more IETF Working Groups.  Participation is by individual      technical contributors, rather than formal representatives of      organizations.  The process works because the IETF Working Groups      display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of      technical maturity; most IETF members agree that the greatest      benefit for all members of the Internet community results from      cooperative development of technically superior protocols and      services.IAB                                                             [Page 3]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      A second body under the IAB, the Internet Research Task Force      (IRTF), investigates topics considered to be too uncertain, too      advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to be the subject of      Internet standardization.  When an IRTF activity generates a      specification that is sufficiently stable to be considered for      Internet standardization, it is processed through the IETF.Section 2 of this document describes the process and rules for      Internet standardization.Section 3 presents the nomenclature for      different kinds and levels of Internet standard technical      specifications and their applicability.Section 4 defines how      relevant externally-sponsored specifications and practices that      are developed and controlled by other bodies or by vendors are      handled in the Internet standardization process.Section 5      presents the requirement for prior disclosure of the existence of      intellectual property rights.Section 6 describes the rules for      Internet Standards that involve patents.2.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS   2.1. Introduction      The procedures described in this document are intended to provide      a clear, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and      adopting Internet Standards for protocols and services.  The      procedures provide ample opportunity for participation and comment      by all interested parties.  Before an Internet Standard is      adopted, it is repeatedly discussed (and perhaps debated) in open      open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is      available for review via world-wide on-line directories.      These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and adopting      generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate for Internet      standardization is implemented and tested for correct operation      and interoperability by multiple, independent parties, and      utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be      adopted as an Internet Standard.      The procedures that are described here provide a great deal of      flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that      occur in the Internet standardization process.  Experience has      shown this flexibility to be vital in achieving the following      goals for Internet standardization:IAB                                                             [Page 4]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      *    high quality,      *    prior implementation and testing,      *    openness and fairness, and      *    timeliness.   2.2.  The Internet Standards Track      Specifications that are destined to become Internet Standards      evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards      track".  These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft      Standard", and "Standard" -- are defined and discussed below inSection 3.2.      Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet      Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and      the recognition of new requirements.  The nomenclature and      procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement      of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of      descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet      Standards.  A set of maturity levels is defined inSection 3.3 to      cover these and other "off-track" specifications.   2.3.  Requests for Comments (RFCs)      Each distinct version of a specification is published as part of      the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series.      RFCs form a series of publications of networking technical      documents, begun in 1969 as part of the original DARPA wide-area      networking (ARPANET) project (seeAppendix A for glossary of      acronyms).  RFCs cover a wide range of topics, from early      discussion of new research concepts to status memos about the      Internet.  The IAB views the RFC publication process to be      sufficiently important to warrant including the RFC Editor in the      IAB membership.      The status of specifications on the Internet standards track is      summarized periodically in a summary RFC entitled "IAB Official      Protocol Standards" [2].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and      other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service      specification.IAB                                                             [Page 5]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992             ********************************************************             *   The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC is the   *             *   authoritative statement of the status of any       *             *   particular Internet specification,                 *             ********************************************************      and it is the "Publication of Record" with respect to Internet      standardization.      The STD documents form a subseries of the RFC series.  When a      specification has been adopted as a Standard, its RFC is labeled      with a STDxxx number [9] in addition to its RFC number.      Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet      should or will become Internet Standards.  Such non-standards      track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet      standardization; generally, they will be published directly as      RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor.  These RFCs will be      marked as "Experimental" or "Informational" (seesection 3.3).             ********************************************************             *   It is important to remember that not all RFCs      *             *   are standards track documents, and that not all    *             *   standards track documents reach the level of       *             *   Standard.                                          *             ********************************************************   2.4.  Internet Drafts      During the development of a specification, draft versions of the      document are made available for informal review and comment by      placing them in the IETF's "Internet Drafts" directory, which is      replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving      working document readily available to a wide audience,      facilitating the process of review and revision.      After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the      cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or      advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made      available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an Internet      Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review,      at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG.      An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the      Internet Draft directory.  A document that has remained unchanged      in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without      being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply      removed from the Internet Draft directory.  At any time, anIAB                                                             [Page 6]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same      specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.      An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;      specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described      in the next section.  Internet Drafts have no formal status, and      are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet      activity, and they are subject to change or removal at any time.      Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be referenced by      any paper, report, or Request for Proposal.   2.5.  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)      Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other      parameters that must be uniquely assigned.  Examples include      version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers.      The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority      (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the      Internet.  The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned      numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [8].      Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some      protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet      Standard.  For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP      is a Standard.  A particular value within a category may be      assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification      requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be      Experimental, or it may be private.      Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values,      so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or      private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA.  Private      protocols often become public.  Programmers are often tempted to      choose a "random" value, or guess the next unassigned value of a      parameter; both are hazardous.      The IANA is tasked to avoid frivolous assignments and to      distinguish different assignments uniquely.  The IANA accomplishes      both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol      or service to which a value is to be assigned.  Judgment on the      adequacy of the description resides with the IANA.  In the case of      a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding      technical specifications provide the required documentation for      IANA.  For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential      any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page)      writeup is still required for an assignment.      To contact the IANA for information or to request a number,IAB                                                             [Page 7]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      keyword or parameter assignment send an email message to      "iana@isi.edu".   2.6.  Review and Approval      A standards action -- entering a particular specification into, or      advancing it within, the standards track -- shall be recommended      to the appropriate IETF Area Director, or to the Chairman of the      IETF, by the individual or group that is responsible for the      specification.  Usually, the recommendation will come from an IETF      Working Group.  The Area Director or IETF chairman, in      consultation with the IESG, shall determine if an independent      technical review of the specification is required, and shall      commission one if necessary.      When a specification is sufficiently important in terms of its      potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet      protocols, the IESG shall form a special review and analysis      committee to prepare an evaluation of the specification.  Such a      committee is commissioned to provide an objective basis for      agreement within the Internet community that the specification is      ready for advancement.  Furthermore, when the criteria for      advancement along the standards track for an important class of      specifications (e.g., routing protocols [6]) are not universally      recognized, the IESG shall commission the development and      publication of category-specific acceptance criteria.      The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the      applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections3.2      and 3.3 of this document) and shall communicate its findings to      the IETF to permit a final review by the general Internet      community.  This IETF notification shall be via electronic mail to      the IETF mailing list; in addition, there will often be a      presentation or statement by the appropriate working group or Area      Director during an IETF plenary meeting.  Any significant issues      that have not been resolved satisfactorily during the development      of the specification may be raised at this time for final      resolution by the IESG.      The IESG shall communicate to the IAB its recommendation for      action, with a citation to the most current version of the      document.  The IETF shall be notified by email of any such      recommendation.  If the IAB finds a significant problem, or needs      clarification on a particular point, it shall resolve the matter      with the Working Group and its chairperson and/or the document      author, with the assistance and concurrence of the IESG and the      relevant IETF Area Director.IAB                                                             [Page 8]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      Following IAB approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC      Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC.  The      specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts      directory.   2.7.  Entering the Standards Track      A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may      originate from:      (a)  an IAB-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),      (b)  independent activity by individuals, or      (c)  an external organization.      In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly integrated with      the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered      for standardization without prior IETF involvement.  In most      cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took place      outside of an IETF Working Group context will be submitted to an      appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement; if      necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created.      For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated      with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to      afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability      of the specification.  If a Working Group is unable to resolve all      technical and usage questions, additional independent review may      be necessary.  Such reviews may be done within a Working Group      context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically      for that purpose.  It is the responsibility of the appropriate      IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of an      external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted.   2.8.  Advancing in the Standards Track      A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at      least 6 months and at the Draft Standard level for at least 4      months.      A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it      advances through the standards track.  At each stage, the IESG      shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the      specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the      recommended action.  Minor revisions are expected, and they will      not affect advancement through the standards track.  A significant      revision may require that the specification accumulate moreIAB                                                             [Page 9]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      experience at its current maturity level before progressing.      Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,      the IESG may decide to treat the revision as if it were a new      document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.      A specification that has not reached the maturity level of      Standard within twenty-four months of first becoming a Proposed      Standard shall be reviewed for viability by the IESG, which shall      recommend either termination or continuation of the development      effort to the IAB.  Such a recommendation shall be communicated to      the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, to allow      the Internet community an opportunity to comment.  This provision      is not intended to threaten legitimate and active Working Group      efforts, but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for      terminating a moribund effort.   2.9.  Revising a Standard      A recommendation to revise an established Internet Standard shall      be evaluated by the IESG with respect to the operational impact of      introducing a new version while the previous version is still in      use.  If the IESG accepts the recommendation, the new version must      progress through the full Internet standardization process as if      it were a completely new specification.      Once the new version has reached the Standard level, it may      immediately replace the previous version.  In some cases, both      versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the      requirements of an installed base; however, the relationship      between 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 Applicability Statement; seeSection 3.1.2).3.  NOMENCLATURE   3.1.  Types of Specifications      The specifications subject to the Internet standardization process      fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and      Applicability Statements (AS).      3.1.1.  Technical Specification (TS)         A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol,         service, procedure, convention, or format.  It may completely         describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may         leave one or more parameters or options unspecified.  A TS may         be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate materialIAB                                                            [Page 10]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992         from other specifications by reference to other documents         (which may or may not be Internet Standards).         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 specific to a particular context shall contain a         statement to that effect.  However, a TS does not specify         requirements for its use within the Internet; these         requirements, which depend on the particular context in which         the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, is         defined by an Applicability Statement.      3.1.2.  Applicability Statement (AS)         An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what         circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a         particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs         that are not Internet Standards, as discussed inSection 4.         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 of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol         that must be implemented.  An AS also specifies the         circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required,         recommended, or elective.         An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a         restricted "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers,         terminal servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets,         or datagram-based database servers.         The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance         specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a         particular class of Internet systems [3,4,5], such as Internet         routers or Internet hosts.         An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards         track than any TS to which the AS applies.  For example, a TS         at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at the         Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not an AS at the         Standard level.  Like a TS, an AS does not come into effect         until it reaches Standard level.      Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice an      Internet Standard RFC may include elements of both an AS and one      or more TSs in a single document.  For example, Technical      Specifications that are developed specifically and exclusively for      some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail serverIAB                                                            [Page 11]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      hosts, often contain within a single specification all of the      relevant AS and TS information.  In such cases, no useful purpose      would be served by deliberately distributing the information among      several documents just to preserve 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 modular fashion, to      facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.   3.2.  Standards Track Maturity Levels      ASs and TSs go through stages of development, testing, and      acceptance.  Within the Internet standards process, these stages      are formally labeled "maturity levels".      This section describes the maturity levels and the expected      characteristics of specifications at each level.  The general      procedures for developing a specification and processing it      through the maturity levels along the standards track were      discussed inSection 2 above.      3.2.1. Proposed Standard         The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed         Standard".  A Proposed Standard specification is generally         stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be         well-understood, has received significant community review, and         appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered         valuable.         Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is         required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed         Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and         will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed         Standard designation.  Furthermore, the IAB may require         implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting         Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially         affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior         that may have significant operational impact on the Internet.         Typically, such a specification will be published initially in         the Experimental state (see below), which is not part of the         standards track, and moved to the standards track only after         sufficient implementation or operational experience has been         obtained.         A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions         with respect to the requirements placed upon it.  In some         cases, the IESG may recommend that the requirements be         explicitly reduced in order to allow a protocol to advance intoIAB                                                            [Page 12]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992         the Proposed Standard state.  This can happen if the         specification is considered to be useful and necessary (and         timely), even absent the missing features.  For example, some         protocols have been advanced by explicitly deciding to omit         security features at the Proposed Standard level, since an         overall security architecture was still under development.      3.2.2. Draft Standard         A specification from which at least two independent and         interoperable implementations have been developed, and for         which adequate operational experience has been obtained, may be         elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  This is a major         advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the         specification is mature and will be useful.         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.      3.2.3. Standard         A specification for which significant implementation and         operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the         Standard level.  A Standard is characterized by a high degree         of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the         specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to         the Internet community.   3.3. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels      Not every TS or AS is on the standards track.  A TS 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      track.  A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent      Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or      disfavor.  Such specifications are labeled with one of three      "non-standards track" maturity levels: "Historic", "Experimental",      and "Informational".      3.3.1. Historic         A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent         specification or is for any other reason considered to beIAB                                                            [Page 13]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992         obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have         suggested that the word should be "Historical"; however, at         this point the use of "Historic" is historical.)      3.3.2. Experimental         The "Experimental" designation on a TS permits widespread         dissemination (through publication according to the procedures         defined by this document) with explicit caveats:  it may         specify behavior that has not been thoroughly analyzed or is         poorly understood;  it may be subject to considerable change;         it may never be a candidate for the formal standards track;         and it may be discarded in favor of some other proposal.         Any TS that is not an immediate candidate for Internet         standardization is appropriate for publication as Experimental.         Interested parties are thereby given the opportunity to gain         experience with implementations and to report their findings to         the community of interest, but the specification is explicitly         not recommended for general production use.      3.3.3. Informational         An "Informational" specification is published for the general         information of the Internet community, and does not represent         an Internet community consensus or recommendation.         Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet         community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards         process by any of the provisions ofSection 4 may be published         as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner.  Such         a document is not an Internet Standard in any sense.   3.4.  Requirement Levels      An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each      of the TSs to which it refers:      (a)  Required:  Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified           by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance.  For           example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet           systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.      (b)  Recommended:  Implementation of the referenced TS is not           required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or           generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability           in the domain of applicability of the AS.  Vendors are           strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, andIAB                                                            [Page 14]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992           protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should           omit them only if the omission is justified by some special           circumstance.      (c)  Elective:  Implementation of the referenced TS is optional           within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS           creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS.  However, a           particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular           user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific           environment.      As noted inSection 2.5, there are TSs that are not in the      standards track or that have been retired from the standards      track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.      Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for      such TSs:      (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered appropriate for use only           in limited or unique circumstances.  For example, the usage           of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should           generally be limited to those actively involved with the           experiment.      (e)  Not Recommended:  A TS that is considered to be inappropriate           for general use is labeled "Not Recommended".  This may be           because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or           historic status.      The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general      requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in      this section.  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.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS   Many de facto and de jure standards groups other than the IAB/IETF   create and publish standards documents for network protocols and   services.  When these external specifications play an important role   in the Internet, it is desirable to reach common agreements on their   usage -- i.e., to establish Internet Standards relating to these   external specifications.   There are two categories of external specifications:   (1)  Open Standards        Accredited national and international standards bodies, such asIAB                                                            [Page 15]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992        ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and CCITT, develop a variety of protocol and        service specifications that are similar to Technical        Specifications (see glossary inAppendix A).  These        specifications are generally de jure standards.  Similarly,        national and international groups publish "implementors'        agreements" that are analogous to Applicability Statements,        capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned        with the practical application of their standards.   (2)  Vendor Specifications        A vendor-specific specification that has come to be widely used        in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as a de        facto "standard".  Such a specification is not generally        developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is        controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the   Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an   "Internet version" of an existing external specification, unless an   explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.  There are,   however, several ways in which an external specification that is   important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be   adopted for Internet use:   (a)  Incorporation of an Open Standard        An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external        standard by reference.  The reference must be to a specific        version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or        by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the        organization that is responsible for the specification.        For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference        the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [7].   (b)  Incorporation of a Vendor Specification        Vendor-proprietary specifications may also be incorporated, by        reference to a specific version of the vendor standard.  If the        vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily        available, the IAB may request that it be published as an        Informational RFC.        In order for a vendor-proprietary specification to be        incorporated within the Internet standards process, the        proprietor must agree in writing to the IAB that "right to use"        licenses will be available on a non-discriminatory basis and atIAB                                                            [Page 16]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992        a reasonable cost.  See also Sections5 and6.        In addition, the IAB/IETF will generally not favor a particular        vendor's proprietary specification over the technically        equivalent and competing specifications of other vendors by        making it "required" or "recommended".   (c)  Assumption        An IETF Working Group may start with a vendor's (or other        body's) voluntarily contributed specification, and independently        evolve the specification into a TS or AS.  Here "independently"        means that the IETF work is not constrained by conditions        imposed by the owner of the original specification;  however,        the continued participation of the original owner in the IETF        work is likely to be valuable, and is encouraged.  The IAB must        receive a formal delegation of responsibility from the original        owner that gives the IAB/IETF responsibility for evolution of        the specification.   As provided bysection 3.1.2, an AS that specifies how an external   technical specification should be applied in the Internet,   incorporating the external specification by reference, may become an   Internet Standard.5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS   Prior to the approval of a specification as a Proposed Standard, all   interested parties are required to disclose to the IAB the existence   of any intellectual property right claims known to them that might   apply to any aspect of the Proposed Standard.   This requirement refers specifically to disclosure of the *existence*   of a current or anticipated claim of an intellectual property right,   not the details of the asserted right itself.6.  PATENT POLICY   This section is tentative, subject to legal review.   There is no objection in principle to drafting an Internet Standard   in terms that include an item or items subject to patent rights that   may have been asserted in one or more countries, if it is considered   that technical reasons justify this approach.  In such cases the   procedure described in this section shall be followed.IAB                                                            [Page 17]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992   6.1 Statement from Patent Holder      Prior to approval of the specification as a Proposed Standard, the      IAB shall receive from the known patent holders, in a form      acceptable to and approved by the IAB, either (a) assurance in the      form of a general disclaimer to the effect that the patent holder      does not hold and does not anticipate holding any right that would      be violated as a consequence of conformance to the standard, or      (b) assurance that      (1)  a license will be made available without compensation to all           applicants desiring to utilize the patented items for the           purpose of implementing the standard, or      (2)  a license will be made available to applicants under           specified reasonable terms and conditions that are, to the           satisfaction of the IAB, demonstrably free of any unfair           discrimination.      The terms and conditions of any license falling under (1) or (2)      shall be submitted to the IAB for review, together with a      statement of the number of independent licenses, if any, that have      accepted or indicated their acceptance of the terms and conditions      of the license.      In addition, the letter to the IAB must contain (c) assurance that      the patent holder does have the right to grant the license, and      (d) a notification of any other patent licenses that are required,      or else the assurance that no other licenses are required.   6.2  Record of Statement      A record of the patent holder's statement (and a statement from      the IAB of the basis for considering such terms and conditions to      be free of any unfair discrimination) shall be placed and retained      in the files of the IAB.   6.3  Notice      When the IAB receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth      insection 5.1(1) or 5.1(2), the corresponding Internet Standard      shall include a note as follows:      "NOTE:  The user's attention is called to the possibility that      compliance with this standard may require the use of an invention      or work covered by patent claims.      "By publication of this standard, no position is taken withIAB                                                            [Page 18]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992      respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in      connection therewith.  The patent holder has, however, filed a      statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights, on      reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, to      applicants desiring to obtain such a license.  Details may be      obtained from the IAB."   6.4  Identifying Patents      The IAB shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for      which a license may be required by an Internet Standard, nor for      conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those      patents that are brought to its attention.7.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES   This document represents the combined output of the Internet   Activities Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group, the   groups charged with managing the processes described in this   document.  Major contributions to the text were made by Bob Braden,   Vint Cerf, Lyman Chapin, Dave Crocker, and Barry Leiner.  Helpful   comments and suggestions were made by a number of IETF members.   [1]  Cerf, V., "The Internet Activities Board",RFC 1160, IAB, May        1990.   [2]  Postel, J., "IAB Official Protocol Standards",RFC 1280, IAB,        March 1992.   [3]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --        Communication Layers",RFC 1122, IETF, October 1989.   [4]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --        Application and Support",RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989.   [5]  Almquist, P., Editor, "Requirements for IP Routers", in        preparation.   [6]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing        Protocol Standardization Criteria",RFC 1264, BBN, October 1991.   [7]  ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for        Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.   [8]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers",RFC 1060, ISI,        March 1990.IAB                                                            [Page 19]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992   [9]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes",RFC 1311, ISI,        March 1992.APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY   ANSI:  American National Standards Institute   CCITT: Consultative Committee for International Telephone and             Telegraphy.             A part of the UN Treaty Organization: the International             Telecommunications Union (ITU).   DARPA: (U.S.) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency   ISO:   International Organization for StandardizationIAB                                                            [Page 20]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992APPENDIX B: FUTURE ISSUES   This memo resulted from an effort to document the current standards   procedures in the Internet community.  At the time of publication,   Sections5 and6 are still undergoing legal review.  In addition,   there are important issues under consideration of how to handle   copyrights and other issues of intellectual property.  This memo is   being published with these matters unresolved, due to its importance.   Pre-publication review of this document resulted in a number of   useful suggestions from members of the Internet community, and opened   up several new issues.  The IAB and IESG will continue to consider   these questions and attempt to resolve these issues; the results will   be be incorporated in future versions of this memo.   For future reference, this appendix records the outstanding   suggestions and issues.   It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following   areas should be considered.   o    Appeals Procedure        Should there be some formal appeals procedure for correcting        abuses or procedural failures, at each decision point in the        process?   o    Tracking Procedure        Should there be a formal procedure for tracking problems and        change requests, as a specification moves through the standards        track?  Such a procedure might include written responses, which        were cataloged and disseminated, or simply a database that        listed changes between versions.   o    Rationale Documentation        Should the procedures require written documentation of the        rationale for the design decisions behind each specification at        the Draft Standard and Standard levels?   o    Application-Layer Standards        Should there be some way to "standardize" application-layer        protocols that are not going to become Internet Standards?   There were suggestions for fine-tuning of the existing procedures:IAB                                                            [Page 21]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992   o    Increase minimum time in Internet Draft directory from 2 weeks        to 1 month.   o    Place explicit time limit, on IESG and IAB action on suggested        standards changes.  Limits suggested: three months.        If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason, the        IETF would have to be explicitly notified.   o    Change minimum time at Draft Standard from 4 to 5 months, to        ensure that an IETF meeting will intervene.   o    There were differing suggestions on how to balance between early        implementation of specifications available only as Internet        Drafts, and ensuring that everyone is clear that such an        Internet Draft has no official status and is subject to change        at any time.  One suggestion was that vendors should not claim        compliance with an Internet Draft.   Finally, there were suggestions for improvements in the documentation   of the standards procedures.   o    Discuss the impact, if any, of export control laws on the        Internet standardization process.        It was observed that the Requirements RFCs contain "negative"        requirement levels: MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT.  Such levels are        not recognized in this Procedures document.   o    Document needs to more clearly explain the criteria for choosing        the Experimental vs. Informational category for an off-track        specification.  Ref. sections3.3.2,3.3.4.   o    Develop recommended wording for citations to Internet Drafts,        which makes clear the provisional, unofficial nature of that        document.   o    Consider changing the name attached to a fully-adopted standard        from "Standard" to some qualified term like "Full Standard".   o    It has been suggested that the document should more strongly        encourage the use of specifications from other standards bodies,        with Internet-specific changes to be made only for compelling        reasons.  Further, the justification of the compelling        requirement would be subject to special review.IAB                                                            [Page 22]

RFC 1310               Internet Standards Process             March 1992Security Considerations   Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo.Author's Address   A. Lyman Chapin   BBN Communications Corporation   150 Cambridge Park Drive   Cambridge, MA  02140   Phone: 617-873-3133   Fax:   617-873-4086   Email: Lyman@BBN.COMIAB                                                            [Page 23]