RFC 4794

RFC 4794: RFC 1264 Is Obsolete 💖

Okay bestie, let's get into RFC 4794 🎀 Here's the tea: it's an Informational doc (so it's just sharing info, not a formal standard 🫶), written by Bill Fenner of AT&T Labs - Research, dated December 2006. It obsoletes RFC 1264 💀, and it doesn't say it updates anything. The whole vibe is "RFC 1264 is giving outdated, please retire it" 🍓

---

Status of This Memo ✨

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice 🎀

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

Abstract 🌸

RFC 1264 was written during what was basically a totally different era of the Internet 🕰️ It laid down rules to protect the Internet from new routing protocols that might have various undesirable properties. Today there are so many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we think the existing controls are enough, and the RFC 1264 rules just get in the way 🙄

1. Introduction ✨

Okay so [RFC1264] describes various rules to apply when publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc. These rules were written to protect the Internet from incomplete or unscalable new protocols 🛡️

Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness. Adding extra rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the IETF's ability to publish specifications on time ⏰

The current standards process [RFC2026] already lets the IESG require more implementation experience when it seems needed. So we don't need any more rules than that 💅 RFC 2026 says:

Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation. The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet.

2. RFC 1264 Is Obsolete 👑

So this document reclassifies RFC 1264 as historic 🦋 That doesn't stop the Routing Area Directors from asking for implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026 rules, but it does remove the broad, general requirement from all routing documents. Main character energy for RFC 2026 💅

3. Working Group Procedures 🧚

Some working groups in the Routing Area have come up with procedures, based on RFC 1264, that require implementations before forwarding a document to the IESG. This doesn't stop those working groups from keeping those procedures if they prefer to work that way 🙌 We encourage working groups to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output ✨

RFC 1264 required a MIB module to be in development for a protocol. This is still encouraged in a broad sense 📚 It's not meant to be limiting though. Protocol management and manageability should be considered in the context of current IETF management protocols 🌈 Also, [RTG-REQS] describes a "Manageability Requirements" section. It's not currently a requirement, but it should be considered 🫶

4. Security Considerations 🔥

Okay, this part is lowkey important. RFC 1264's rules put extra constraints on the security-related contents of an RFC. But current policies, like the requirement for a Security Considerations section, are enough 🔐 No cap, we're covered.

5. Acknowledgements 🫶

Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a ton of time trying to write an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would work for today's Internet 😭 That work was eventually abandoned. After a lot of public discussion (at Routing Area meetings, Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list), it became clear there was just no way to write those rules in a way that moved the IETF's goals forward 💀

6. References 📚

6.1. Normative References

[RFC1264]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
           Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
           October 1991.

[RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

6.2. Informative References

[RTG-REQS] Farrel, A., Andersson, L., and A. Doria, "Requirements for
           Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts", Work in
           Progress, October 2005.

Author's Address 🎀

Bill Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
1 River Oaks Place
San Jose, CA  95134-1918
USA

Phone: +1 408 493-8505
EMail: fenner@research.att.com

Full Copyright Statement 💜

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST, AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property 🦋

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document, or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available. It also doesn't represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures for rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement 🌷

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.