STD Numbers and the IETF Standards Track
draft-klensin-std-numbers-00a.txt

Abstract

STD numbers are assigned to IETF Standards Track specifications in order to provide a stable reference even when RFCs are revised and the underlying documents change. However, the numbers are only assigned when the specifications reach Full Standard maturity level, significantly reducing their utility in the contemporary world in which few specifications advance to Full, or even Draft, Standard. For that reason, one recent proposal suggested eliminating the numbers entirely. This document argues that stable references for Standards Track specifications are actually useful and that the solution is not to abolish the numbers but to change the point at which they are assigned.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”

This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2011.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction and Rationale
2.  Proposal
    2.1.  Changes to RFC 2026
    2.2.  RFC 1311 Changes
3.  Transition
4.  Acknowledgements
5.  IANA Considerations
6.  Security Considerations
7.  References
    7.1.  Normative References
    7.2.  Informative References
§  Author's Address

1.  Introduction and Rationale

STD numbers [1] (Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” October 1996.) are assigned to IETF Standards Track specifications in order to provide a stable reference even when RFCs are revised and the underlying documents change. However, the numbers are only assigned when the specifications reach Full Standard maturity level, significantly reducing their utility in the contemporary world in which few specifications advance to Full, or even Draft, Standard. For that reason, one recent proposal [2] (Housley, R., “Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels,” June 2010.) suggested eliminating the numbers entirely. This document argues that stable references for Standards Track specifications are actually useful and that the solution is not to abolish the numbers but to change the point at which they are assigned.

During the discussion of the document that proposed to eliminate these numbers [2] (Housley, R., “Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels,” June 2010.) at IETF 78, there appeared to be little support for keeping STD numbers in their current form (assigned only to Full Standards). There was no discussion of assigning them earlier because that option was not listed in the subject I-D. That may have been a serious omission since similar stable references have proven to be very useful in the BCP case and might be even more useful if better supported by available tools (there are no provisions in xml2rfc (RFC 2629 et seq. (Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” June 1999.) [3]) for easily constructing references to multiple-document BCPs or STDs, nor does the current RFC Style Manual provide guidance as to how such references should be laid out).

Note in Draft: The author strongly prefers a more comprehensive solution to current perceived problems with maturity levels and STD numbers, a solution such as that described in [4] (Klensin, J., “Internet Standards Documentation (ISDs) and Maturity Levels,” July 2010.), but it seems useful to get a narrowly-scoped proposal about STD numbers on the table at this time.

2.  Proposal

2.1.  Changes to RFC 2026

Update RFC 2026, BCP 9, as follows:

Section 2.1, paragraph 5

Change: "Some RFCs document Internet Standards"
To: "Some RFC documents IETF Standards at various maturity lavels".

Change the note: "(see section 4.1.3)"
To: "(see Section 4)"

Section 4

Add a new paragraph after the first paragraph of this section ("Specifications that are intended to become...") that reads:
A specification that reaches the status of Proposed Standard is assigned a number in the STD series. It retains that STD number as it progresses along the Standards Track (that progression usually involves a change in RFC numbers). The STD number is also retained when the relevant protocol is updated or replaced for other reasons (see [5] (Postel, J., “Introduction to the STD Notes,” March 1992.)).

Section 4.1.3

Remove the second paragraph, which begins "A specification that reaches..."

2.2.  RFC 1311 Changes

Informally, this document also updates the Informational RFC 1311 to make it refer to all Standards Track documents. It may be useful to replace RFC 1311 at some point, but that should not be a high-priority task, nor should it block approval of the change suggested in this document.

3.  Transition

STD numbers are useful for documentation and other references. Whether they are assigned or not does not change the actual status of any given document. STD numbers have historically been assigned by the RFC Editor and this document does not propose to change that responsibility (even though, in the current multi-stream model for RFCs, having them assigned by the Secretariat under IESG supervision might make more sense). In the interest of avoiding both heavyweight processes and the need for a period of concentrated effort, STD numbers will be assigned only when:

1. A new Standards Track specification is published, at any maturity level.
2. An update or replacement is published for a Standards track specification for which an STD number has not already been assigned, specifically including changes or grade or recycling in grade. Authors, WGs, or ADs responsible for such specifications are strongly encouraged to supply the RFC Editor with any desired grouping information, i.e., the identification of specifications that should also be assigned the same STD number.
3. On the request of any Area Director who concludes that assignment of an STD number to a particular specification or group of specifications would facilitate documentation, understanding of the specification, or other uses. Especially when the number is to be assigned to a group of specifications, Area Directors are encouraged to seek community input on the decisions being made, but neither such input nor a more formal Last Call are required by this document.

This transition approach explicitly recognizes the principle that STD numbers that would not be used need not be assigned and that not assigning them does no harm. It prefers a "just in time" approach for existing specifications.

4.  Acknowledgements

This document is an intellectual descendant of a NEWTRK WG specification called "Identifying Standards Track Documents" [6] (Klensin, J., “Identifying Standards Track Documents,” February 2006.). It differs from that specification largely by suggesting an even lighter-weight transition process. The present work would not have been possible without those earlier discussions.

5.  IANA Considerations

[Comment.1] (RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.)

This memo includes no requests to or actions for IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

This document affects an IETF administrative procedure and has no direct effect on the Security of the Internet. However, better use of stable identifiers for Standards Track document and related groups of such documents may make critical information easier to find. That, may, in turn, have positive security implications.

7.  References

7.1. Normative References

7.2. Informative References

Author's Address