rfc2026.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

   from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
   for consensus building.

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



Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


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

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

5.1 BCP Review Process

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

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

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

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

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








Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


6.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS

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

6.1  Standards Actions

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

6.1.1  Initiation of Action

   A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet
   standards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see
   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 less
   than two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a
   recommendation for action may be initiated.

   A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF
   Working group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,
   copied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not
   associated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to
   the IESG.

6.1.2  IESG Review and Approval

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

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



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 the
   specification.

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

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

   The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
   specification was submitted.  For example, the IESG may decide to
   consider the specification for publication in a different category
   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 based
   on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
   specification being published at a "higher" level than the original
   Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the
   IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
   the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
   controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
   originating from an IETF Working Group.

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

6.1.3  Publication

   If a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC
   Editor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the
   specification as an RFC.  The specification shall at that point be
   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 shall
   appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
   shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
   actions.

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

6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track

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

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

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

   A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
   advances through the standards track.  At each stage, the IESG shall
   determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
   specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
   recommended action.  Minor revisions are expected, but a significant
   revision may require that the specification accumulate more
   experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally,
   if the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG
   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 specification
   as an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at
   all in the specification since the last publication.  Generally,
   desired changes will be "batched" for incorporation at the next level
   in the standards track.  However, deferral of changes to the next
   standards action on the specification will not always be possible or
   desirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a
   technical error that does not represent a change in overall function



Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 20]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


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

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

6.3  Revising a Standard

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

6.4  Retiring a Standard

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





Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 21]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


6.5  Conflict Resolution and Appeals