RFC 1602

The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2

📅 published March 1994, from ietf

The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2 🎀

Okay bestie, let's start with the basics 💅 This is RFC 1602, titled The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2. It came out of the Network Working Group and was written by the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group 🫶 It's dated March 1994, it's in the Informational category, and it obsoletes RFC 1310 ✨ so this one replaces that older version.

Status of this Memo 🌸

This memo is just here to share information with the Internet community, no cap. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind 🙈 Distribution is unlimited, so share it with everyone 💜

Notice 🦋

This informational memo lays out the current procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards. It's provisional 👀 which means it's still waiting on legal review and concurrence from the Internet Society Trustees. It's getting published anyway so the Internet Community can stay up to speed on the current status of policies and procedures for Internet Standards work ✨

Abstract 🧚

This document is a revision of RFC 1310, which defined the official procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards.

This revision (revision 2) has some major changes, and I'm obsessed 😭

  • (a) The new management structure from the POISED Working Group is reflected here. The IETF plenary, the IAB, and the IESG agreed to these changes in November 1992, and the ISOC Board of Trustees accepted them at their December 1992 meeting 👑
  • (b) Prototype status is added to the non-standards track maturity levels (Section 2.4.1). 🍓
  • (c) The Intellectual Property Rights section is completely revised, based on legal advice. Section 5 of this document replaces Sections 5 and 6 of RFC-1310, and the new section 5 has been reviewed by legal counsel to the Internet Society ⚖️
  • (d) An appeals procedure is added (Section 3.6). 🌈
  • (e) The wording of sections 1 and 1.2 has been changed to clarify the relationships that exist between the Internet Society and the IAB, the IESG, the IETF, and the Internet Standards process 💫
  • (f) An Appendix B has been added, listing the contact points for the RFC editor, the IANA, the IESG, the IAB and the ISOC. The "future issues" are now listed in Appendix C 🧸

Table of Contents 📚

   1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................  3
      1.1  Internet Standards. ......................................  4
      1.2  Organizations ............................................  6
      1.3  Standards-Related Publications ...........................  8
      1.4  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................ 10
   2.  NOMENCLATURE ................................................. 11
      2.1  The Internet Standards Track ............................. 11
      2.2  Types of Specifications .................................. 12
      2.3  Standards Track Maturity Levels .......................... 13
      2.4  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ...................... 15
      2.5  Requirement Levels ....................................... 17
   3.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ............................... 19
      3.1  Review and Approval ...................................... 19
      3.2  Entering the Standards Track ............................. 20
      3.3  Advancing in the Standards Track ......................... 21
      3.4  Revising a Standard ...................................... 22
      3.5  Retiring a Standard ...................................... 22
      3.6  Conflict Resolution and Appeals .......................... 23
   4.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................ 24
   5.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................. 26
      5.1.  General Policy .......................................... 26
      5.2.  Definitions ............................................. 26
      5.3  Trade Secret Rights ...................................... 27
      5.4.  Rights and Permissions .................................. 27
      5.5.  Notices ................................................. 30
      5.6.  Assurances .............................................. 31
   6.  REFERENCES ................................................... 34
   APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................. 35
   APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS ....................................... 35
   APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES ........................................ 36
   Security Considerations .......................................... 37
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 37

1. Introduction ✨

This memo documents the process the Internet community currently uses to standardize protocols and procedures 🫧 The Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society. It's organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group.

1.1. Internet Standards 💖

The Internet is a loosely-organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks. It supports host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards 🌐 There are also lots of isolated internets, meaning sets of interconnected networks that aren't connected to the Internet but still use the Internet Standards.

Internet Standards used to be limited to the protocols making up what's commonly known as the "TCP/IP protocol suite". But the Internet has been evolving to support multiple protocol suites, especially the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) suite 🦋 The Internet Standards process described here covers all protocols, procedures, and conventions used in or by the Internet, whether or not they're part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. For protocols developed and/or standardized by non-Internet organizations, though, the Internet Standards process may apply only to how the protocol or procedure is applied in the Internet context, not to the specification of the protocol itself.

Generally speaking, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet 👑

The procedures in this document are designed to be fair, open and objective, to reflect existing (proven) practice, and to be flexible 💅 Here's how that plays out:

  • These procedures give a fair, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet Standards. There's plenty of room for participation and comment from all interested parties. At each stage, a specification is repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it's made available for review via world-wide on-line directories 🌸
  • These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting generally-accepted practices. So a candidate specification gets implemented and tested for correct operation and interoperability by multiple independent parties, and gets used in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as an Internet Standard 🔥
  • These procedures give a lot of flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that come up in the standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility is vital for hitting the goals listed above 🧚

The goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior implementation and testing, and the need to let all interested parties comment all take serious time and effort 😭 But today's rapid development of networking technology puts real urgency on timely standards. The Internet standardization rules described here are meant to balance these conflicting goals. The process is believed to be as short and simple as possible without undue sacrifice of technical competence, prior testing, or openness and fairness ✨

In summary, the goals for the Internet standards process are:

  • technical excellence;
  • prior implementation and testing;
  • clear, short, and easily understandable documentation;
  • openness and fairness; and
  • timeliness. 💜

In outline, creating an Internet Standard is pretty straightforward. A specification goes through a period of development and several rounds of review by the Internet community, with revisions based on experience. Then it's adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body (see below) and published 🎀 In practice it's more complicated, because of (1) the difficulty of creating specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating how useful a particular specification is for the Internet community 🙈

From its very beginning, the Internet has been, and is expected to stay, an evolving system. Its participants regularly fold new requirements and technology into its design and implementation 🌈 Users of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and services that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution, because it's a major tenet of Internet philosophy 🫶

The procedures in this document are the result of three years of evolution, driven by both the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse Internet community and by experience. Comments and suggestions are invited for improving these procedures 💌

The rest of this section covers the organizations and publications involved in Internet standardization. Section 2 presents the nomenclature for the different kinds and levels of Internet standard technical specifications and their applicability. Section 3 describes the process and rules for Internet standardization. Section 4 defines how relevant externally-sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by other standards bodies or by vendors, are handled in the Internet standardization process. Section 5 presents the rules required to protect intellectual property rights and to assure unrestricted ability for all interested parties to practice Internet Standards 🧸

1.2. Organizations 🫧

The following organizations are involved in the Internet standards process.

  • IETF

The IETF 🦋 is a loosely self-organized group of people who make technical and other contributions to the engineering and evolution of the Internet and its technologies. It's the principal body doing the development of new Internet Standard specifications ✨, although it is not itself a part of the Internet Society. The IETF is made up of individual Working Groups, which are grouped into Areas, and each Area is coordinated by one or more Area Directors. Nominations to the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group are made by a nominating committee picked at random from the regular IETF meeting attendees who volunteered to be nominating committee members. Iconic selection process, honestly 💅.

ISOC 🌸

Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet Society (ISOC). The ISOC is a professional society that cares about the growth and evolution of the worldwide Internet, the way the Internet is and can be used, and the social, political, and technical issues that come up because of it. The ISOC Board of Trustees is responsible for approving appointments to the Internet Architecture Board from among the nominees submitted by the IETF nominating committee.

IESG 🧚

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet Standards process. As part of the Internet Society, it runs the Internet Standards process according to the rules and procedures given in this document, which have been accepted and ratified by the Internet Society Trustees. The IESG is directly responsible for the actions tied to entering and moving along the "standards track", as described in section 3 of this document, including final approval of specifications as Internet Standards. The IESG is made up of the IETF Area Directors and the chairperson of the IETF, who also serves as the chairperson of the IESG. Main character energy, fr 👑.

IAB 💜

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is a technical advisory group of the Internet Society. The ISOC Trustees chartered it to oversee the architecture of the Internet and its protocols, and to serve, within the Internet Standards process, as the body where IESG decisions can be appealed (as described in section 3.6 of this document). The IAB is responsible for approving appointments to the IESG from among the nominees submitted by the IETF nominating committee.

Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is urged to participate actively in one or more IETF Working Groups and to attend IETF meetings, bestie 🫶. In many cases, active Working Group participation is possible through email alone. Also, Internet video conferencing is being used experimentally to allow remote participation. Participation is by individual technical contributors, not formal representatives of organizations. The process works because the IETF Working Groups show a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of technical maturity. IETF participants get that the greatest benefit for all members of the Internet community comes from cooperative development of technically superior protocols and services 🌈.

Members of the IESG and IAB are nominated for two-year terms by a committee drawn from the roll of recent participants in the IETF and chartered by the ISOC Board of Trustees. The appointments of IESG and IAB members are made from these nominations by the IAB and by the ISOC Board of Trustees, respectively.

The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) is not directly part of the standards process 🔬. It investigates topics considered too uncertain, too advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to be the subject of Internet standardization. When an IRTF activity generates a specification that is stable enough to be considered for Internet standardization, that specification is processed through the IETF using the rules in this document 🦋.

1.3.1. Requests for Comments (RFCs) 📜

Each distinct version of a specification 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 are available for anonymous FTP from a number of Internet hosts 💌.

The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see Appendix 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. 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 reference [5]. Every RFC is available in ASCII text, but some RFCs are also available in PostScript. The PostScript version of an RFC may contain material (such as diagrams and figures) that is not in the ASCII version, and it may be formatted differently 🎀.

*********************************************************
*  A stricter requirement applies to standards-track    *
*  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 summarized periodically in an RFC titled "Internet Official Protocol Standards" [1]. That RFC shows the level of maturity and other helpful info for each Internet protocol or service specification. See Section 3.1.3 below 📋.

Some RFCs document Internet standards. These RFCs form the STD subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard, it gets the extra label "STDxxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC series 🌟.

Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet should or will become Internet Standards, and that's okay 🥹. 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 and the IESG. These RFCs will be marked "Prototype", "Experimental", or "Informational" as appropriate (see section 2.3) 🧪.

********************************************************
*   It is important to remember that not all RFCs      *
*   are standards track documents, and that not all    *
*   standards track documents reach the level of       *
*   Internet Standard.                                 *
********************************************************

1.3.2. 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 easy for a wide audience to access, which helps the review and revision process along 👀.

An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has stayed 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, an Internet Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, which restarts 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 previous section. Internet Drafts have no formal status, are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet activity, and 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, nor should a vendor claim compliance     *
*   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
********************************************************
Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the phrase "Work in Progress", without referencing an Internet Draft 💖.

1.4. 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 job of assigning such protocol parameters for the Internet. The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [3] 📚.

Each category of assigned numbers typically comes 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 on the standards track, it may be Experimental, or it may be private. Note that assigning a number to a protocol is independent of, and does not imply, acceptance of that protocol as a standard 🦋.

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, bestie 😭. Programmers are often tempted to choose a "random" value or to guess the next unassigned value of a parameter, and both are hazardous 💀.

Okay so the IANA is supposed to avoid frivolous assignments 🙄 and keep different assignments uniquely distinguishable 🔍. How? By requiring a technical description of each protocol or service that wants a value assigned 📝. Whether the description is good enough is up to the IANA 👑. For standards track or Experimental protocols, the technical specifications already count as the required documentation for IANA ✅. For a proprietary protocol, IANA keeps any writeup you send them confidential 🤫, but you still need at least a short (2 page) writeup for an assignment 📄.

2. NOMENCLATURE ✨

2.1. The Internet Standards Track

Specs that are destined to become Internet Standards glow up through a set of maturity levels called the "standards track" 🌱. Those levels are "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and "Standard", and we'll break them down in Section 3.2 💅.

Even after a spec has become an Internet Standard, it keeps evolving 🔄 based on experience and new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures let old Internet Standards get replaced by new ones, and they let people attach descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards 🪦. Section 3.3 defines a set of maturity levels for these and other "off-track" specifications 🧩.

2.2. Types of Specifications

Specs that go through the Internet standardization process come in two flavors: Technical Specifications (TS) and Applicability Statements (AS) 🍓.

2.2.1. 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 material 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) 📜. So 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 🌐. Those requirements depend on the particular context in which the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, and they are defined by an Applicability Statement 💁.

2.2.2. Applicability Statement (AS)

An Applicability Statement spells out 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 in Section 4.

An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way they're combined 🧩. It 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, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts 📖.

An AS MAY NOT have a higher maturity level in the standards track than any standards-track 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 by an AS at the Standard level 🚫.

An AS MAY refer to a TS that is either a standards-track specification or is "Informational", but not to a TS with a maturity level of "Prototype", "Experimental", or "Historic" (see section 2.4) 🔎.

Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a standards-track document MAY combine an AS and one or more related TSs 🫶. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed specifically and exclusively for some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain all of the relevant AS and TS information within a single specification. 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, so that it can be incorporated by multiple ASs 🧩.

2.3. 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 📋.

2.3.1. 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 💜. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it advances 🔄.

Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for a specification to be designated a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and it will usually be a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation 💪.

The IESG MAY require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols, or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet. Typically, such a specification will be published initially with Experimental or Prototype status (see below), 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. However, the IESG MAY recommend that this requirement be explicitly reduced, so a protocol can advance into the Proposed Standard state when a specification is considered useful and necessary (and timely), even without the missing features 🫠.

Implementors SHOULD treat Proposed Standards as immature 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 customer base is not normally advisable 🚧.

2.3.2. Draft Standard

A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations have been developed, and for which sufficient successful 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 🌋.

2.3.3. Internet Standard

A specification for which significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained MAY be elevated to the Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which MAY simply be referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community 🏆.

A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to deploy implementations of draft standards into the customer base 📦.

2.4. 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 may have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor 🗑️.

Specifications not on the standards track are labeled with one of four off-track maturity levels: "Prototype", "Experimental", "Informational", and "Historic". There are no time limits associated with these non-standard track labels, and the documents bearing these labels are not Internet standards in any sense 🏷️. As the Internet grows, there is a growing amount of credible technical work being submitted directly to the RFC Editor without having gone through the IETF. It is possible that such outside submissions may overlap or even conflict with ongoing IETF activities. For the best technical result to emerge for the community, we believe that such outside submissions SHOULD be given the opportunity to work within the IETF to gain the broadest possible consensus 🤝.

It is also possible that supporters of a view different from the IETF may wish to publish their divergent view. For this reason, it is important that, ultimately, authors SHOULD have the opportunity to publish Informational and Experimental RFCs should they wish to. However, it is also possible that this could open a loophole in which developers could try to bypass the IETF consensus process completely by publishing an Informational RFC (and relying on the prestige of the RFC series to gain community support for their document) 🕳️.

For all these reasons, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed to the following policy for publishing Info and Exp RFCs: ✨

  1. okay so the RFC Editor is gonna flag every Informational and Experimental submission they think might be related to, or of interest to, the IETF community 👀✨
  2. then the IESG reviews all those referrals within a fixed length of time and makes a call: publish it, or suggest the author bring their work inside the IETF 🫶
  3. if the IESG recommends bringing the work inside the IETF but the author says nah, the IESG MAY add disclaimer text into the standard boilerplate the RFC Editor adds (e.g., "Status of this memo") 💅

2.4.1. Prototype

okay bestie, for brand new protocols that touch core Internet services, or where the interactions with existing protocols are too complex to fully wrap your head around from the written spec alone, the IESG MAY request that operational experience be gathered before advancing to Proposed Standard status 🧠 in those cases the IESG will mark an otherwise complete spec as "Prototype" 🎀 that lets it get published as an RFC before it's even on the standards track 🚀

"Prototype" is kind of like "Experimental" in that way, except Prototype means it's being built specifically to become a standard, while "Experimental" is more of an exploratory vibe 🧪

2.4.2. Experimental

the "Experimental" label on a TS usually means the spec is part of some research or development effort 🔬 it gets published for the general info of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work 📚 an Experimental spec may be the output of an organized Internet research effort (like a Research Group of the IRTF), or it may be an individual contribution 🌸

Documents intended for Experimental status SHOULD be submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication 💌 the whole procedure is meant to speed things up for any responsible Experimental spec, with only editorial considerations and a check that there's been adequate coordination with the standards process 🏃‍♀️✨

2.4.3. Informational

an "Informational" spec is published for the general information of the Internet community, and it does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation 🧃 the Informational designation exists so responsible informational docs from tons of different sources can get published quickly, subject only to editorial considerations and a check for adequate coordination with the standards process 📰

Specs prepared outside the Internet community and not pulled into the Internet standards process by any of the provisions of Section 4 MAY be published as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner 🦋

2.4.4. Historic

a TS or AS that has been superseded by a newer spec, or is considered obsolete for any other reason, gets assigned to the "Historic" level 🕰️ (purists have suggested the word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is historical 💀)

2.5. Requirement Levels

An AS MAY apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each of the TSs it refers to:

  • (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 it's desirable in the domain of applicability of the AS 🍓 vendors are strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and 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, meaning 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 it's a necessity in a specific environment 🧚

As noted in Section 2.4, some TSs are not in the standards track or have been retired from it, so they are therefore not REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or elective 🫠 two additional "requirement level" designations exist for those TSs:

  • (d) Limited Use: the TS is considered appropriate 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 inappropriate for general use is labeled "Not Recommended" 🙈 this may be because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic status 🕸️

The "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 will be found in the appropriate ASs 📖

3. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ✨

3.1. Review and Approval

A "standards action" -- entering a particular spec into, advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- MUST be approved by the IESG 🛎️

3.1.1. Initiation of Action

typically, a standards action is kicked off by a recommendation to the appropriate IETF Area Director from whoever is responsible for the spec, usually an IETF Working Group 💌

after the author and the cognizant Working Group are happy with it, a document that is expected to enter or advance in the Internet standardization process SHALL be made available as an Internet Draft 📄 it SHALL stay an Internet Draft for long enough to permit useful community review, at least two weeks, before it goes to the IESG with a recommendation for action ⏳

3.1.2. IESG Review and Approval

the IESG SHALL determine whether a specification satisfies the applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this document) 🔍

the IESG SHALL determine if an independent technical review of the specification is REQUIRED, and SHALL commission one when necessary 🧐 this may require creating a new Working Group, or an existing group MAY agree to take responsibility for reviewing the spec 🤝 when a specification is important enough in terms of its potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG SHALL form an independent technical review and analysis committee to evaluate it 🏛️ that committee exists to give the Internet community an objective basis for agreeing the spec is ready for advancement ✅

the IESG SHALL communicate its findings to the IETF so the general Internet community can do a final review 📣 this "last-call" notification SHALL be sent via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list 💌 for important specs, there SHALL also be a presentation or statement from the appropriate Working Group or Area Director during an IETF plenary meeting 🎤 any significant issues that didn't get resolved satisfactorily during development MAY be raised at this time for final resolution by the IESG 😤

in a timely fashion, but no sooner than two weeks after the last-call notification goes out to the IETF mailing list, the IESG SHALL make its final determination on whether or not to approve the standards action, and SHALL notify the IETF of its decision via email 📬

3.1.3. Publication

following IESG approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC Editor SHALL publish the spec as an RFC 🎉 the spec SHALL then be removed from the Internet Drafts directory 🧹

an official summary of standards actions completed and pending SHALL appear in each issue of the Internet Society Newsletter 📰 this SHALL constitute the "journal of record" for Internet standards actions 📚 on top of that, the IESG SHALL publish a monthly summary of completed and pending standards actions in the Internet Monthly Report, which gets distributed to all members of the IETF mailing list 💜

finally, the IAB SHALL publish quarterly an "Internet Official Protocol Standards" RFC, summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications, both within and outside the standards track 👑

3.2. Entering the Standards Track

a spec that is potentially an Internet Standard may originate from:

  • (a) an ISOC-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),
  • (b) independent activity by individuals, or
  • (c) an external organization.

Case (a) accounts for the great majority of specs that enter the standards track 🥇 in cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly integrated with an existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered for standardization without any prior IETF involvement 🌷 in most cases, a spec that came out of an effort outside an IETF Working Group will be submitted to an appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement 🫶 if necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created 🎀

bestie, when an externally-developed spec is well-integrated with existing Working Group efforts 🌸, the WG is assumed to have given it enough community review for accuracy and applicability 💅. If the WG can't settle every technical and usage question, extra independent review may be needed 🔍. That review can happen inside a Working Group or through an ad hoc review committee set up just for it 🧚. Ad hoc committees can also show up when the review needed is too small to justify forming a whole Working Group 🎀. It's the job of the right IETF Area Director to decide what review, if any, an external spec gets and how it's done 👑.

3.3. Advancing in the Standards Track 🦋

okay so a spec shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months, no skipping ⏳.

A spec shall also remain at the Draft Standard level for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred, whichever comes later 🗓️.

These minimum periods are there to give the community a real chance to review things without slowing everything down too much 💖. These intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the corresponding RFC(s). If the action doesn't result in RFC publication, they're measured from the date of IESG approval of the action 📅.

A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it moves through the standards track ✏️. At each stage, the IESG shall figure out the scope and significance of the revision and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action 🔍. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant revision may need the spec to pick up more experience at its current maturity level before it progresses 📚. And if a spec has been changed very significantly, the IESG may recommend treating the revision as a new document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning 🔁.

Change of status shall result in republication of the specification as an RFC, except in the rare case that nothing at all has changed since the last publication 📜. Usually, desired changes get "batched" for the next level in the standards track 📦. Deferring changes to the next standards action won't always be possible or desirable, though 😬. For example, an important typo, or a technical error that doesn't change the overall function of the spec, may need to be fixed right away 🩹. In those cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum time-at-level clock ⏱️.

When a standards-track spec hasn't reached the Internet Standard level but has stayed at the same status level for twenty-four (24) months, the IESG shall review the viability of the standardization effort behind it. This repeats every twelve (12) months after that until the status changes 🔄. After each review, the IESG shall approve either terminating or continuing the development 🧐. That decision shall be communicated to the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, so the Internet community gets a chance to comment 📧.

This provision isn't meant to threaten a legit, active Working Group effort 🫶. It's just an administrative mechanism for wrapping up a moribund effort 💀.

3.4. Revising a Standard 🔄✨

A new version of an established Internet Standard must go through the full Internet standardization process as if it were a completely new specification 💜. Once the new version reaches the Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which then moves to Historic status 🕰️. In some cases, though, both versions may stay as Internet Standards to honor the requirements of an installed base 🤝. When that happens, the relationship between the previous and new versions must be explicitly stated in the text of the new version, or in another appropriate document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see Section 2.2.2) 📝.

3.5. Retiring a Standard 👋🌈

As technology changes and matures, a new Standard specification can become so clearly superior that one or more existing Internet Standards for the same function should be retired 🚀. In that case, the IESG shall approve changing the superseded specification(s) from Standard to Historic 📜. This recommendation shall be issued with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any other standards action 📣.

3.6. Conflict Resolution and Appeals ⚖️💅

IETF Working Groups are usually able to reach consensus, even though that sometimes takes hard compromises between different technical solutions 🤝. But sometimes even reasonable, knowledgeable people just can't agree 😤. To keep things open and fair, these conflicts must be resolved through open review and discussion 🫧. A Working Group participant might disagree with a WG decision because they don't feel their views are being properly considered, or because they think the WG made a technical choice that essentially won't work 🙅‍♀️. The first is a problem with WG process, and the second is an assertion of technical error. These two kinds of disagreement may end differently, but the resolution process is the same for both 🎀.

Working Group participants always should first try to talk through their concerns with the Working Group chair 💬. If that doesn't work out, they should bring their concerns to an IESG Area Director or another IESG member 👑. In most cases, issues that reach the IESG get considered by the entire IESG, with the relevant Area Director or the IETF Chair tasked with communicating the results of the discussion 📮.

For the general community, and for WG participants who want a bigger audience, there are two chances for explicit comment 📢. (1) When appropriate, a specification being suggested for advancement along the standards track will be presented during an IETF plenary. At that point, IETF participants can raise issues with the plenary or take them up privately with any of the relevant IETF/IESG management personnel 🎤. (2) Specifications the IESG is going to consider get publicly announced to the IETF mailing list, with a request for comments 📬.

Finally, if a problem sticks around, the IAB may be asked to adjudicate the dispute 🧑‍⚖️.

  • If a concern involves questions of adequate Working Group discussion, the IAB will attempt to determine the actual nature and extent of the discussion that took place within the Working Group. It bases this on the Working Group's written record and on comments from other Working Group participants 📚.
  • If a concern involves questions of technical adequacy, the IAB may convene an appropriate review panel, which may then recommend that the IESG and Working Group reconsider an alternate technical choice 🔬.
  • If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical approach, but doesn't substantiate a claim that the Working Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working Group participant may wish to pursue forming a separate Working Group 🌱. The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points of view and the development of technical options. That lets the general Internet community show preference through its own choices, rather than through legislated decisions 🦋✨.

4. External Standards and Specifications ✨

Okay bestie, so lots of other standards groups out there make specs for network protocols and services 📚. When these outside specs play a big role on the Internet, it's desirable to reach common agreements on how they get used. That means establishing Internet Standards about these external specifications 🤝.

There are two categories of external specifications, and they have very different vibes 💅:

(1) Open Standards

Accredited national and international standards bodies, like ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-TS, put out a bunch of protocol and service specs that are kinda similar to the Technical Specifications we define here 🎀. National and international groups also publish "implementors' agreements," which are analogous to Applicability Statements. They capture implementation-specific detail about practically applying their standards.

(2) Vendor Specifications

A vendor-proprietary specification that has become widely used on the Internet MAY be treated by the Internet community as if it were a "standard" 👀. These specs aren't usually developed in an open fashion, they're typically proprietary, and the vendor or vendors that made them control them.

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. Honestly though, there are several ways an external specification that matters for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet can 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, lots of Internet Standards incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2]. Whenever possible, the referenced specification SHALL be made available online 🌐.

(b) Incorporation of a Vendor Specification

Vendor-proprietary specifications MAY be incorporated by reference to a specific version of the vendor standard. If the vendor-proprietary specification isn't widely and readily available, the IESG MAY request that it be published as an Informational RFC 📝.

For a vendor-proprietary specification to be incorporated within the Internet standards process, the proprietor MUST meet the requirements of section 5 below. In general, the specification SHALL be made available online 💜.

The IESG SHALL 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 from an external specification and develop it into an Internet TS or AS. This is acceptable if (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with the requirements of section 5 below, and (2) change control has been conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification. Continued participation in the IETF work by the original owner is likely to be valuable, and it's encouraged 🫶.

Here's a sample of how a vendor might hand change control over to the Internet Society 🎀:

"XXXX Organization asserts that it has the right to transfer to
the Internet Society responsibility for further evolution of the
YYYY protocol documented in References (1-n) below.  XXXX
Organization hereby transfers to the Internet Society
responsibility for all future modification and development of
the YYYY protocol, without reservation or condition."

5. Intellectual Property Rights 💅

5.1. General Policy

In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others 🌈.

5.2. Definitions

As used in this section, the following terms have the indicated meanings 📖:

  • "Trade secrets" are confidential, proprietary information.
  • "Contribution" means any disclosure of information or ideas, whether in oral, written, or other form of expression, by an individual or entity ("Contributor").
  • "Standards track documents" are specifications and other documents that have been elevated to the Internet standards track in accordance with the Internet Standards Process.
  • "Copyrights" are purportedly valid claims to copyright in all or part of a contribution to standards work, whether or not the contribution becomes a standards track document, including but not limited to any works by third parties that the contribution is based on or incorporates.
  • "ISOC" refers to the Internet Society and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors, and agents, as well as the IAB, IETF, IESG, IRTF, IRSG, and other task forces, committees, and groups coordinated by the Internet Society.
  • "Standards work" is work involved in the creation, testing, development, revision, adoption, or maintenance of an Internet standard that is carried out under the auspices of ISOC.
  • "Internet community" refers to the entire set of persons, whether individuals or entities, including but not limited to technology developers, service vendors, and researchers, who use the Internet, either directly or indirectly, and users of any other networks which implement and use Internet Standards.

5.3 Trade Secret Rights

Except as otherwise provided under this section, ISOC will not accept, in connection with standards work, any idea, technology, information, document, specification, work, or other contribution, whether written or oral, that is a trade secret or otherwise subject to any commitment, understanding, or agreement to keep it confidential or otherwise restrict its use or dissemination; and, specifically, ISOC does not assume any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution 🔒.

5.4. Rights and Permissions

In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in various forms and from many persons. To make these contributions widely available, it's necessary to set up specific understandings about any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the contribution 🧾. The procedures in this section apply to contributions submitted after 1 April 1994. For Internet standards documents published before this date (the RFC series has been published continuously since April 1969), information on rights and permissions MUST be sought directly from the persons claiming rights therein ⭐.

5.4.1. All Contributions

By submission of a contribution to ISOC, and in consideration of possible dissemination of the contribution to the Internet community, a contributor is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions 🤍:

  1. Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any copyrights in the contribution to reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce, distribute and perform or display publicly any such derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to authorize others to do so.
  2. Contributor acknowledges that ISOC has no duty to publish or otherwise use or disseminate every contribution.
  3. Contributor grants ISOC permission to reference the name(s) and address(s) of the contributor as well as other persons who are named as contributors.
  4. Where the contribution was prepared jointly with others, or is a work for hire, the contributor represents and warrants that the other owner(s) of rights have been informed of the rights and permissions granted to ISOC and that any required authorizations have been obtained. Copies of any such required authorizations will be furnished to ISOC, upon request.
  5. Contributor acknowledges and agrees that ISOC assumes no obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any aspect of the contribution, and warrants that the the contribution does not violate the rights of others.
  6. All material objects in which contributions are submitted to ISOC become the property of ISOC and need not be returned to the contributor.

Where appropriate, written confirmation of the above terms and conditions will be obtained in writing by ISOC, usually by electronic mail. However, a decision not to obtain such confirmation in a given case SHALL NOT act to revoke the prior grant of rights and permissions with respect to the contribution as provided herein. Except as provided below, the Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat, or a person designated by the Executive Director, will be responsible for obtaining written confirmations 📬.

In the case of IETF Working Groups, the responsibility for identifying the principal contributor(s) for purposes of obtaining written confirmation of the above rights and permissions will be assumed by the Editor or Chair of the particular Group. While only those persons named as principal contributor(s) will generally be requested to provide written confirmation, it is the responsibility of all contributors to standards work to inform the IETF Secretariat of any proprietary claims in any contributions and to furnish the Secretariat with any required confirmation 🧚.

Where any person participating in standards work asserts any proprietary right in a contribution, it is the responsibility of such person to so inform the Editor or Chair of the group, promptly, in writing. The Editor or Chair will then determine whether to list the person as a principal contributor, or to revise the document to omit the particular contribution in question 🍓.

5.4.2. Standards Track Documents

(A) ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any standards, including but not limited to standards labelled Proposed, Draft or Internet Standards, which can only be practiced using technology or works that are subject to known copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other rights, except with the prior written assurance of the owner of rights that:

  1. ISOC gets to implement and use the technology or works in its own standards work, without cost and freely 💸
  2. Once an Internet Standard has been adopted, and all the way through its maintenance, any party will be able to get the right to implement and use the technology or works, on specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms 🫶; and
  3. The party giving the assurance really does have the right and power to grant those licenses, and they don't know of any other copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights that could stop ISOC and the Internet community from implementing and operating under the standard 🔐.

(B) Okay, so ISOC is not on the hook for hunting down copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights for anyone in the Internet community, and it doesn't take a side on whether those rights are valid or how far they reach 🙅‍♀️. ISOC also won't take a position on who owns inventions made during standards work 💡. The one exception is an inventor who is an employee or agent of the Internet Society. In that case, the Internet Society makes its rights available under license to anyone in the Internet community, following the written assurances set out below. Iconic behaviour, honestly 👑.

5.5. Notices 📣

(A) When a written assurance has been collected (see the details in Section 5.6 below), the relevant standards track documents shall include this notice, word for word:

"__________(name of rights' owner) has provided written
assurance to the Internet Society that any party will be
able to obtain, under reasonable, nondiscriminatory
terms, the right to use the technology covered
by__________(list copyrights, patents, patent
applications, and other rights) to practice the
standard.  A copy of this assurance may be obtained from
the Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat.   The
Internet Society takes no position on the validity or
scope of the copyrights, patents, patent applications,
or other rights, or on the appropriateness of the terms
and conditions of the assurances.  The Internet Society
does not make any representation there are no other
rights which may apply to the practice of this standard,
nor that it has made any effort to identify any such
rights.  For further information on the Internet
Society's procedures with respect to rights in standards
and standards-related documentation, see RFC_____,
dated________."

(B) ISOC really wants everyone to flag any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights related to Internet Standards as early as possible 🌈. So every standards document will include this invitation:

"The Internet Society invites any interested party to
bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent
applications, or other proprietary rights which purport
to cover technology or works that may be required to
practice this standard.  Please address the information
to the Executive Director of the Internet Engineering
Task Force Secretariat."

(C) When it applies, this sentence gets tacked onto the notice too 📝:

"As of __________, no information about any copyrights,
patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights has been received."

(D) Every ISOC standards-related document will include this copyright notice and disclaimer 🎀:

"Copyright (c) ISOC (year date).  Permission is granted
to reproduce, distribute, transmit and otherwise
communicate to the public any material subject to
copyright by ISOC, provided that credit is given to the
source.  For information concerning required
permissions, please contact the Executive Director of
the Internet Engineering Task Force Secretariat."

And then the disclaimer, which is the part that gets very serious 😭:

ISOC hereby informs the Internet community and other
persons that any standards, whether or not elevated to
the Internet Standard level of maturity, or any
standards-related documentation made available under the
auspices of ISOC are provided on an "AS IS" basis and
ISOC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR
THAT ANY STANDARD OR DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

5.6. Assurances 🤝

Here's the agreement on assurances. It usually gets signed between the owner of the rights and ISOC once a standards track document claiming proprietary rights reaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity ✨. Bestie, this one is a legal text, so it stays word for word:

This is an agreement between ______________(hereinafter
called "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf of
itself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors and
agents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering
Steering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other task
forces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet Society
(hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users of
the Internet and users of any other networks which implement and
use Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC called
"Internet community").  This agreement takes effect when signed on
behalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society.

The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have rights
in patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and
other proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter called
"Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the Internet
community to implement and operate under the standards set forth
in ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the listed
standards and any similar or related standards now existing or
later developed are together hereinafter called "Standards").  The
Rights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A.
The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed in
Schedule A from time to time, and, in particular, immediately
prior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet Standard
level of maturity in accordance with the Internet Standards
Process, and to inform the Executive Director of the Internet
Engineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of any
new Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list in
Schedule A.

The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will derive
benefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community to
implement and operate under the Standards without interference of
any of the Rights.  The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt,
or continue to maintain the Standards unless written assurances
are given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights.
Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above and
other good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes the
assurances set forth herein.

The Rights Holder grants to ISOC a cost-free, perpetual,
non-exclusive, world-wide license under the Rights with respect to
implementing and operating under the Standards.  The license
extends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards without
limit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose,
test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain,
withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare derivative
works in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and to
authorize others to do so.  The Rights Holder also grants ISOC
permission to use the name and address of Rights Holder in
connection with the Standards.

The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in any
trade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the trade
secrets available without restriction to the Internet community.
The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes no
obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any
aspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do not
violate the rights of others.

The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder shall
grant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary of
this agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide license
under the Rights, with respect to operating under the Standards
for a reasonable royalty and under other terms which are
reasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that all
members of the Internet community will be able to operate under
the Standards at a minimal cost.  The license discussed in this
paragraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test,
enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs, and
hardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards.
Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying the
terms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any other
license under the Rights previously or later granted by the Rights
Holder.

A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible on
the Internet, and shall become effective immediately when the
member of the Internet community executes it and posts it for
delivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically.
The initial version of the license shall be in the form attached
as Schedule B.

The Rights Holder represents and warrants that its rights are
sufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the other
assurances recited in this agreement.  The Rights Holder further
represents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of any
other party in any country which would block or impede the ability
of ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate under
the Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder from
granting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement.

This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC to
propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or any
other standard.

6. REFERENCES 📚

Okay bestie, this is the bibliography, aka the shelf of every doc this one borrowed from 💅 Here they are:

[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1, RFC 1600, USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1994.

[2] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.

[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.

[4] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.

[5] Postel, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 🔤

Here's the acronym cheat sheet, so you're never lost in the alphabet soup 🍜✨

ANSI: American National Standards Institute
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency
AS:   Applicability Statement
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the International
         Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN treaty organization;
         ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.
IAB:  Internet Architecture Board
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
IP:   Internet Protocol
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

APPENDIX B: CONTACT POINTS 📬

Who to text when you need something, bestie 💌

To contact the RFC Editor, send an email message to: "rfc-editor@isi.edu".

To contact the IANA for information or to request a number, keyword or parameter assignment, send an email message to: "iana@isi.edu".

To contact the IESG, send an email message to: "iesg@cnri.reston.va.us".

To contact the IAB, send an email message to: "iab-contact@isi.edu".

To contact the Executive Director of the ISOC, send an email message to "amr@isoc.org".

APPENDIX C: FUTURE ISSUES 🔮

Okay, the future plans era 🌈 It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following areas should be considered.

  • Policy Recommendations and Operational Guidelines 🌍

Internet standards have mostly been about the technical specs for the hardware and software needed for computers to talk across interconnected networks. The Internet itself is made up of networks run by a huge variety of organizations, each with their own goals and rules. Still, good user service means the operators and administrators of the Internet need to follow some shared guidelines for policies and operations. These guidelines are usually different in scope and style from protocol standards, but making them still needs a similar process for getting everyone to agree. Specific rules for setting up policy recommendations and operational guidelines for the Internet in an open and fair way should be developed, published, and adopted by the Internet community.

  • Industry Consortia 🤝

The rules in Section 4 for external standards should be expanded to handle industry consortia.

  • Tracking Procedure 🗂️

It has been suggested that there should be a formal procedure for tracking problems and change requests as a specification moves through the standards track. That procedure might include written responses that were cataloged and disseminated, or simply a database that listed changes between versions. Right now, there aren't enough resources to run something like that 😩

A simpler proposal is to keep a change log for documents. 📝

  • Time Limit ⏳

An explicit time limit (e.g., 3 months) has been suggested for IESG resolution concerning a standards action under the rules of Section 3.1.2. If it ever became necessary to extend that time for some reason, the IETF would have to be explicitly notified.

  • Bug Reporting 🐛

There is no documented mechanism that an individual community member can use to report a problem or bug with a standards-track specification. One suggestion was that every standards RFC should include an email list for the responsible Working Group.

Security Considerations 🔐

Real talk, bestie, and I need you to hear this one 🫶 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. Nothing in these pages covers them, so please don't assume this document has you covered on that front 💀

Authors' Addresses 🦋

Meet the people behind the doc 💖

Christian Huitema, IAB Chairman
INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
2004 Route des Lucioles
BP 109
F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
France

Phone:  +33 93 65 77 15

EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR
Phill Gross, IESG Chairman
Director of Broadband Engineering
MCI Data Services Division
2100 Reston Parkway, Room 6001
Reston, VA 22091

Phone: +1 703 715 7432
Fax: +1 703 715 7436
EMail: 0006423401@mcimail.com
📦 where this page comes from