RFC relevance of specific

As per Relevance of the word specific, we have this rfc below:

Network Working Group S.
Request for Comments: 2026 Harvard
BCP: 9 October 1996
Obsoletes: 1602
Category: Best Current

The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3

Status of this

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited

This memo documents the process used by the Internet community
the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines
stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving
document between stages and the types of documents used during
process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights
copyright issues associated with the standards process

Table of

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................2
1.1 Internet Standards...........................................3
1.2 The Internet Standards Process...............................3
1.3 Organization of This Document................................5
2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................5
2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs).................................5
2.2 Internet-Drafts..............................................7
3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................8
3.1 Technical Specification (TS).................................8
3.2 Applicability Statement (AS).................................8
3.3 Requirement Levels...........................................9
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................10
4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................11
4.1.1 Proposed Standard.......................................11
4.1.2 Draft Standard..........................................12
4.1.3 Internet Standard.......................................13
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................13
4.2.1 Experimental............................................13
4.2.2 Informational...........................................14
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......14
4.2.4 Historic................................................15

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

5. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................15
5.1 BCP Review Process..........................................16
6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................17
6.1 Standards Actions...........................................17
6.1.1 Initiation of Action....................................17
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval................................17
6.1.3 Publication.............................................18
6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track............................19
6.3 Revising a Standard.........................................20
6.4 Retiring a Standard.........................................20
6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals.............................21
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes...................................21
6.5.2 Process Failures.........................................22
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure........................22
6.5.4 Appeals Procedure........................................23
7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................23
7.1 Use of External Specifications..............................24
7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard.......................24
7.1.2 Incorporation of a Other Specifications.................24
7.1.3 Assumption..............................................25
8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................25
9. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................26
9.1 The Variance Procedure.......................................26
9.2 Exclusions...................................................27
10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................27
10.1. General Policy............................................27
10.2 Confidentiality Obligations...............................28
10.3. Rights and Permissions....................................28
10.3.1. All Contributions......................................28
10.3.2. Standards Track Documents..............................29
10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable
Non-discriminatory Terms................................30
10.4. Notices...................................................30
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................32
12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................32
13. REFERENCES.....................................................33
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................33
15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS...............................................34
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................35

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

1.

This memo documents the process currently used by the
community for the standardization of protocols and procedures.
Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet
Steering Group (IESG).

1.1 Internet

The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration
autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-
communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols
procedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also
isolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to
global Internet but use the Internet Standards

The Internet Standards Process described in this document
concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that
used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of
TCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/
standardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the
Standards Process normally applies to the application of the
or procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of
protocol itself

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

1.2 The Internet Standards

In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard
straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of
and several iterations of review by the Internet community
revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by
appropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice,
process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of
specifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to
the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance
establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the
of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for
Internet community

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

The goals of the Internet Standards Process are
o technical excellence
o prior implementation and testing
o clear, concise, and easily understood documentation
o openness and fairness;
o timeliness

The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair
open, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and
be flexible

o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open,
objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting
Standards. They provide ample opportunity for participation
comment by all interested parties. At each stage of
standardization process, a specification is repeatedly
and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public
mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-
on-line directories

o These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and
generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate
must be implemented and tested for correct operation
interoperability by multiple independent parties and utilized
increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted
an Internet Standard

o These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt
the wide variety of circumstances that occur in
standardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility
be vital in achieving the goals listed above

The goal of technical competence, the requirement for
implementation and testing, and the need to allow all
parties to comment all require significant time and effort. On
other hand, today's rapid development of networking
demands timely development of standards. The Internet
Process is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The
is believed to be as short and simple as possible without
technical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard
or openness and fairness

From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain
an evolving system whose participants regularly factor
requirements and technology into its design and implementation.
of the Internet and providers of the equipment, software,
services that support it should anticipate and embrace this
as a major tenet of Internet philosophy

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

The procedures described in this document are the result of a
of years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing
increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 5]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

1.3 Organization of This

Section 2 describes the publications and archives of the
Standards Process. Section 3 describes the types of
standard specifications. Section 4 describes the Internet
specifications track. Section 5 describes Best Current
RFCs. Section 6 describes the process and rules for
standardization. Section 7 specifies the way in which externally
sponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled
other standards bodies or by others, are handled within the
Standards Process. Section 8 describes the requirements for
and record keeping Section 9 defines a variance process to
one-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this
Section 10 presents the rules that are required to
intellectual property rights in the context of the development
use of Internet Standards. Section 11 includes acknowledgments
some of the people involved in creation of this document. Section 12
notes that security issues are not dealt with by this document
Section 13 contains a list of numbered references. Section 14
contains definitions of some of the terms used in this document
Section 15 lists the author's email and postal addresses. Appendix
contains a list of frequently-used acronyms

2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED

2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs

Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related
is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC)
series. This archival series is the official publication channel
Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB
and Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number
Internet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and
Internet document-retrieval systems

The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part
the original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (
Appendix A for glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range
topics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion
new research concepts to status memos about the Internet.
publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under
general direction of the IAB

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 6]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

The rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [5].
Every RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also
in other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain
(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the
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
summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet
Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity
other helpful information for each Internet protocol or
specification (see section 3).

Some RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD
subseries of the RFC series [4]. When a specification has
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional
"STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the
series. (see section 4.1.3)

Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations
statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way
perform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs
the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given
additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its
in the RFC series. (see section 5)

Not all specifications of protocols or services for the
should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-
track specifications are not subject to the rules for
standardization. Non-standards track specifications may be
directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the
of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 7]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

********************************************************
* *
* 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. In the same way, not all RFCs *
* which describe current practices have been given *
* the review and approval to become BCPs. See *
* RFC-1796 [6] for further information. *
* *
********************************************************

2.2 Internet-

During the development of a specification, draft versions of
document are made available for informal review and comment
placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which
replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an
working document readily available to a wide audience,
the process of review and revision

An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has
unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six
without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC,
simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time,
Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the
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
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and
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. *
* *
********************************************************

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 8]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track
that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using
phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft
This may also be done in a standards track document itself as
as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as
complete and understandable document with or without the reference
the "Work in Progress".

3. INTERNET STANDARD

Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall
one of two categories: Technical Specification (TS)
Applicability Statement (AS).

3.1 Technical Specification (TS

A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service
procedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all
the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or
parameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self
contained, or it may incorporate material from other
by reference to other documents (which might or might not be
Standards).

A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general
for its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is
specific to a particular context shall contain a statement to
effect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its
within the Internet; these requirements, which depend on
particular context in which the TS is incorporated by
system configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement

3.2 Applicability Statement (AS

An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under
circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a
Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are
Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.

An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which
are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or
of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must
implemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the
of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see
3.3).

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 9]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a
"domain of applicability", such as Internet routers,
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
Internet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts

An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards
than any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see section 4.1).
For example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an
at the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS
the Standard level

3.3 Requirement

An AS shall apply one of the following "requirement levels" to
of the TSs to which it refers

(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified
the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example
IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using
TCP/IP Protocol Suite

(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is
required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or
accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the
of applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged
include the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended
in their products, and should omit them only if the omission
justified by some special circumstance. For example, the
protocol should be implemented by all systems that would
from remote access

(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is
within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the
creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However,
particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular
may decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment.
example, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in
environment where the DECNET protocol is used

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 10]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

As noted in section 4.1, there are TSs that are not in
standards track or that have been retired from the
track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective
Two additional "requirement level" designations are available
these TSs

(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for
only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the
of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should
be limited to those actively involved with the experiment

(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be
for general use is labeled "Not Recommended". This may be
of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or
status

Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice
standards-track document may combine an AS and one or more
TSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are
specifically and exclusively for some particular domain
applicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within
single specification all of the relevant AS and TS information.
such cases, no useful purpose would be served by
distributing the information among several documents just to
the formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to
to more than one domain of applicability should be developed in
modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs

The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a
requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in
section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases,
detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of
protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be
in appropriate ASs

4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS

Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards
through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard",
"Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. The way
which specifications move along the standards track is described
section 6.

Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard
further evolution often occurs based on experience and
recognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures
Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 11]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels
indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards. A set
maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and
specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track

4.1 Standards Track Maturity

Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing
and acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these
are formally labeled "maturity levels".

This section describes the maturity levels and the
characteristics of specifications at each level

4.1.1 Proposed

The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard
level

A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough
interest to be considered valuable. However, further
might result in a change or even retraction of the
before it advances

Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience
required for the designation of a specification as a
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed
designation

The IESG may require implementation and/or operational
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that
behavior that may have significant operational impact on
Internet

A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions
respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG
waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to
to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 12]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed
problems are found or better solutions are identified,
implementations of such standards into a disruption-
environment is not recommended

4.1.2 Draft

A specification from which at least two independent and
implementations from different code bases have been developed,
for which sufficient successful operational experience has
obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level. For
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process
which they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled
is required for implementation, the separate implementations
also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process
Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status,
a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful

The requirement for at least two independent and
implementations applies to all of the options and features of
specification. In cases in which one or more options or
have not been demonstrated in at least two
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft
level only if those options or features are removed

The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the
implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or
Standard status along with documentation about testing of
interoperation of these implementations. The documentation
include information about the support of each of the
options and features. This documentation should be submitted to
Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)

A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing
implementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional
more widespread field experience, since it is possible
implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to
unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in
environments

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 13]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification
and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific
encountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors
deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption
environment

4.1.3 Internet

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

A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned
number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number

4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity

Not every specification is on the standards track. A
may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be
for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the
track. A specification may have been superseded by a more
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor

Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these
are not Internet Standards in any sense

4.2.1

The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification
is part of some research or development effort. Such a
is published for the general information of the Internet
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only
editorial considerations and to verification that there has
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF
Group, or it may be an individual contribution

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 14]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

4.2.2

An "Informational" specification is published for the
information of the Internet community, and does not represent
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of
very broad range of responsible informational documents from
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards
(see section 4.2.3).

Specifications that have been prepared outside of the
community and are not incorporated into the Internet
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and
concurrence of the RFC Editor

4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational

Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action,
intended to be published with Experimental or Informational
should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor
publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not
been so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they
easily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after
publication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC
is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the
suitability of a document for publication with Experimental
Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which,
the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to
activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard
RFCs

To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as
contribution to the Internet Standards Process

If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 15]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to,
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers

Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by
Working Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated
the process described in section 6.1.1.

4.2.4

A specification that has been superseded by a more
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use
"Historic" is historical.)

Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend
other standards track specifications which are at a lower
level or on non standards track specifications other than
specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.)

5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP)

The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures
standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the
community can define and ratify the community's best current
on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best
to perform some operations or IETF process function

Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned
the technical specifications for hardware and software required
computer communication across interconnected networks. However
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good
service requires that the operators and administrators of
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar
for consensus building

While it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG
composed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in
technical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 16]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

themselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As
in the Internet technical community, these entities should have
outlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area,
raise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make
statement of architectural principle, or to communicate
thoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a
structured way for these management entities to insert proposals
the consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging
community's view of that issue

Finally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of
IETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF
Process and is published as a BCP

5.1 BCP Review

Unlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in
are not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three
standards track and instead generally only make sense for full
immediate instantiation

The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The
is submitted to the IESG for review, (see section 6.1.1) and
existing review process applies, including a Last-Call on the
Announce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved
document, the process ends and the document is published.
resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of
IETF

Specifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP
undergo the procedures outlined in sections 6.1, and 6.4 of
document. The BCP process may be appealed according to the
in section 6.5.

Because BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are
at more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care
Specifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as
Informational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents
for a content different from Informational RFCs

A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have
approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series
retaining its RFC number(s).

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 17]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS

The mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions
the IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto
standards track or the movement of a standards-track
from one maturity level to another. Although a number of
objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are
to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto
along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic
of elevation to or progression along the standards track for
specification. The experienced collective judgment of the
concerning the technical quality of a specification proposed
elevation to or advancement in the standards track is an
component of the decision-making process

6.1 Standards

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

6.1.1 Initiation of

A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the
standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (
section 2.2) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC
It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not
than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which
recommendation for action may be initiated

A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the
Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director
copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification
associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual
the IESG

6.1.2 IESG Review and

The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted
it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria
the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and
of the specification is consistent with that expected for
maturity level to which the specification is recommended

In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make
determinations, particularly when the specification is considered
the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 18]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may
at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of
specification

The IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending
consideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by
general Internet community. This "Last-Call" notification shall
via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on
Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent
directed in the Last-Call announcement

The Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except
those cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated
an IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be
shorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the
interest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it
decide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen
current Last-Call period

The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when
specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide
consider the specification for publication in a different
than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last
Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view
The IESG could also decide to change the publication category
on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in
specification being published at a "higher" level than the
Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating
IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to
the formation of a new Working Group in the case of
controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification
originating from an IETF Working Group

In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period,
IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to
the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list

6.1.3

If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the
Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish
specification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point
removed from the Internet-Drafts directory

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 19]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

An official summary of standards actions completed and pending
appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.
shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet
actions

The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet
Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all
protocol and service specifications

6.2 Advancing in the Standards

The procedure described in section 6.1 is followed for each
that attends the advancement of a specification along the
track

A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for
least six (6) months

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

These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity
community review without severely impacting timeliness.
intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of
corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in
publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of
action

A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as
advances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG
determine the scope and significance of the revision to
specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify
recommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a
revision may require that the specification accumulate
experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally
if the specification has been changed very significantly, the
may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re
entering the standards track at the beginning

Change of status shall result in republication of the
as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes
all in the specification since the last publication. Generally
desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next
in the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the
standards action on the specification will not always be possible
desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or
technical error that does not represent a change in overall

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 20]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

of the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In
cases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (
a new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the
time-at-level clock

When a standards-track specification has not reached the
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status.
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort

6.3 Revising a

A new version of an established Internet Standard must
through the full Internet standardization process as if it were
completely new specification. Once the new version has reached
Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version,
will be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases
versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the
of an installed base. In this situation, the relationship
the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in
text of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g.,
Applicability Statement; see section 3.2).

6.4 Retiring a

As the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a
Standard specification to be so clearly superior technically that
or more existing standards track specifications for the same
should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some
reason that an existing standards track specification should
retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the
specification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be
with the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for
other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard
originate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some
interested party

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 21]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

6.5 Conflict Resolution and

Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process.
much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can
made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times
even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable
agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such
must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion.
section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal
Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the
processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet
Process participants ordinarily reach consensus

6.5.1 Working Group

An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group
not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his
her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working
has made an incorrect technical choice which places the
and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in
jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working
process; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These
types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled
the same process of review

A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation
always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the
Group as a whole) in the discussion

If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of
parties involved may bring it to the attention of the
Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered
The Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute

If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any
the parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole.
IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in
manner of its own choosing

If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of
parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal
decision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation
attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 22]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and
respect to all questions of technical merit

6.5.2 Process

This document sets forward procedures required to be followed
ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process,
the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is
principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG
is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have
followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards
have been met

If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG
this process, that person should first discuss the issue with
ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the
then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken,
with input from the complainant, and determine whether any
action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of
complaint to the IETF

Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the
review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then
the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its
choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review

If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision
annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the
decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG
or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not
however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision
only the IESG is empowered to make

The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether
not the Internet standards procedures have been followed

6.5.3 Questions of Applicable

Further recourse is available only in cases in which the
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document)
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of
Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 23]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF
the outcome of its review

The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be
with respect to all aspects of the dispute

6.5.4 Appeals

All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of
facts of the dispute

All appeals must be initiated within two months of the
knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged

At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or
responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to
the specific procedures they will follow in the process of
their decision

In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute
and the communication of that decision to the parties involved,
be accomplished within a reasonable period of time

[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do
establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be
"reasonable" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places
premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and
foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor
a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may
reached.]

7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND

Many standards groups other than the IETF create and
standards documents for network protocols and services. When
external specifications play an important role in the Internet, it
desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e.,
establish Internet Standards relating to these
specifications

There are two categories of external specifications

(1) Open

Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI
ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and
specifications that are similar to Technical
defined here. National and international groups also

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 24]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

"implementors' agreements" that are analogous to
Statements, capturing a body of implementation-specific
concerned with the practical application of their standards.
of these are considered to be "open external standards" for
purposes of the Internet Standards Process

(2) Other

Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely
in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as
they were a "standards". Such a specification is not
developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and
controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that
it

7.1 Use of External

To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification,
Internet community will not standardize a specification that
simply an "Internet version" of an existing external
unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made
However, there are several ways in which an external
that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the
may be adopted for Internet use

7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open

An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open
standard by reference. For example, many Internet
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2].
Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be
online

7.1.2 Incorporation of Other

Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference
a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets
requirements of section 10. If the other proprietary
is not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it
published as an Informational RFC

The IESG generally should not favor a particular
specification over technically equivalent and
specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor
"required" or "recommended".

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 25]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

7.1.3

An IETF Working Group may start from an external specification
develop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1)
the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance
the requirements of section 10, and (2) change control has
conveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification
the specification or for specifications derived from the
specification

8. NOTICES AND RECORD

Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval
Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain
publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages,
the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any
of the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section,
organizations involved in the development and approval of
Standards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF
Groups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees

For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be
sufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all
parties to effectively participate. The announcement shall
(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary
support the participation of any interested individual. In the
of a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an
that specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed

The formal record of an organization's standards-related
shall include at least the following

o the charter of the organization (or a defining document
to a charter);
o complete and accurate minutes of meetings
o the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists;
o all written contributions from participants that pertain to
organization's standards-related activity

As a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet
Process activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is
responsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF
Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and
make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured
included in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair
responsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete
accurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 26]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

have been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-
directories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the
purpose of preserving an historical record of Internet
activity and thus are not retrievable except in
circumstances

9. VARYING THE

This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by
Internet Standards and related documents are made is itself a
of the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in
5). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself
be replaced

While, when published, this document represents the community's
of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to
met, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs,
cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time
time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a
version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as
used for any other BCP

In addition, there may be situations where following the
leads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may
situations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these
it may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure
below

9.1 The Variance

Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or,
no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad
committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into,
advance it within, the standards track even though some of
requirements of this document have not or will not be met. The
may approve such a variance, however, only if it first
that the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely
outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result
noncompliance with the requirements in this document. In
this discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the
merit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving
goals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance
(c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the
and precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG'
ability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible.
determining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion
limit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this
and to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 27]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

determines appropriate to protect the interests of the
community

The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain
precise provision of this document which is causing the need for
variance, and the results of the IESG's considerations
consideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph
The proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The
shall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks,
allow for community comment upon the proposal

In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period,
IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to
the proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision
electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the
is approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a
that it be published as a BCP

This variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of
provision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent
to this document shall be accomplished through the normal
process

The appeals process in section 6.5 applies to this process

9.2

No use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor
any proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness,
consensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the
and mailing list discussions

Specifically, the following sections of this document must not
subject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3
(first sentence), 6.5 and 9.

10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

10.1. General

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

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 28]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

10.2 Confidentiality

No contribution that is subject to any requirement of
or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any
of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption
any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution

10.3. Rights and

In the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions
various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate
dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to
any intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions

10.3.1. All

By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and
on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any)
represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in
contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors
addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission,
actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor
made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions
his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent
any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution

l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject
copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or
be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization
represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights
the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive
royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and
IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This
includes the right to copy, publish and distribute
contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that
based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution,
license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as
license of the original contribution

2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no
to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution

3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s)
address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s)
represents (if any).

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 29]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

4. The contributor represents that contribution properly
major contributors

5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree
no information in the contribution is confidential and that
ISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose
information in the contribution

6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence
any proprietary or intellectual property rights in
contribution that are reasonably and personally known to
contributor. The contributor does not represent that
personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary
intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the
he represents (if any) or third parties

7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to
contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments
agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to
contributor

By ratifying this description of the IETF process the
Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open
free access to IETF documents for which license and right
been assigned according to the procedures set forth in
section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant
perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or
successors or assigns

10.3.2. Standards Track

(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other
rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification
the standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG,
IESG shall not advance the specification without including in
document a note indicating the existence of such rights,
claimed rights. Where implementations are required
advancement of a specification, only implementations that have,
statement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply
any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for
purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any
copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in
fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take
position on the validity or scope of any such rights

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 30]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A),
IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the
of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the
of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s),
party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use
distribute the technology or works when implementing, using
distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s
under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms
The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with
to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the
Executive Director in this effort. The results of this
shall not affect advancement of a specification along
standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where
delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances.
results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director
and made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary
the results be included in any RFC published containing
specification

10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory

The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of
technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use
normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards
verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two
implementations of the specification that are required to
from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced
different organizations or individuals or if the "
implementation and successful operational experience" required
advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved
assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree
non-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during
Last-Call period

10.4.

(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice

"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope
any intellectual property or other rights that might be
to pertain to the implementation or use of the
described in this document or the extent to which any
under such rights might or might not be available; neither
it represent that it has made any effort to identify any
rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect
rights in standards-track and standards-related
can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 31]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

available for publication and any assurances of licenses
be made available, or the result of an attempt
to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
proprietary rights by implementors or users of
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat."

(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of
intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards
For this purpose, each standards document shall include
following invitation

"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications,
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may
required to practice this standard. Please address
information to the IETF Executive Director."

(C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be
in all ISOC standards-related documentation

"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All
Reserved

This document and translations of it may be copied
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on
otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the
notice or references to the Internet Society or other
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
Internet standards in which case the procedures for
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed,
as required to translate it into languages other than English

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors
assigns

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 32]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

This document and the information contained herein is
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE
OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

(D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication
proprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards
document, or the technology described or referenced therein,
document shall contain the following notice

"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification
in this document. For more information consult the online
of claimed rights."

11.

There have been a number of people involved with the development
the documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years
The process was first described in RFC 1310 then revised in RFC 1602
before the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).
Specific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin,
Gross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions
to Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions,
Andy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for
reviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein,
to John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive
on the final version

In addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details
the IETF processes belongs to the many members of the
incarnations of the POISED Working Group

12. SECURITY

Security issues are not discussed in this memo

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 33]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

13.

[1] Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.

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

[3] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.

[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.

[6] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker "Not All RFCs
Standards", RFC 1796, April 1995.

14. DEFINITIONS OF

IETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area
of Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing.
Area is managed by one or two Area Directors
Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area
along with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet
Steering Group (IESG).
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used
transfer files in a TCP/IP network
gopher - An Internet application used to interactively select
retrieve files in a TCP/IP network
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that
in the management of the IETF standards process
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of
IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is
for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is
standards approval board for the IETF
interoperable - For the purposes of this document, "interoperable
means to be able to interoperate over a data communications path
Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action
(see section 6.1.2)

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 34]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

online - Relating to information made available over the Internet
When referenced in this document material is said to be
when it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee
standard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher
the WWW
Working Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on
specific specification, set of specifications or topic

15. AUTHOR'S

Scott O.
Harvard
Holyoke Center, Room 813
1350 Mass. Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 35]

RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF

ANSI: American National Standards
ARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects
AS: Applicability
FTP: File Transfer
ASCII: American Standard Code for Information
ITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a
treaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT
IAB: Internet Architecture
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
ICMP: Internet Control Message
IESG: Internet Engineering Steering
IETF: Internet Engineering Task
IP: Internet
IRSG Internet Research Steering
IRTF: Internet Research Task
ISO: International Organization for
ISOC: Internet
MIB: Management Information
OSI: Open Systems
RFC: Request for
TCP: Transmission Control
TS: Technical
WWW: World Wide

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 36]

if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.

RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.

Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX