1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
|
Network Working Group B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4794 AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264 December 2006
Category: Informational
RFC 1264 Is Obsolete
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
Abstract
RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely
different time in the life of the Internet. It prescribed rules to
protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have
various undesirable properties. In today's Internet, there are so
many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
get in the way.
Fenner Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4794 RFC 1264 Is Obsolete December 2006
1. Introduction
RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when
publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including
requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc. These rules
were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or
unscalable new protocols.
Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness.
Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the
IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner.
The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to
require additional implementation experience when it appears to be
needed. We do not need any more rules than that. RFC 2026 says:
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed
Standard designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
2. RFC 1264 Is Obsolete
Therefore, this document reclassifies RFC 1264 as historic. While
that does not prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring
implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026
rules, it removes the broad, general requirement from all routing
documents.
3. Working Group Procedures
Some working groups within the Routing Area have developed
procedures, based on RFC 1264, to require implementations before
forwarding a document to the IESG. This action does not prevent
those working groups from continuing with these procedures if the
working group prefers to work this way. We encourage working groups
to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output.
RFC 1264 required a MIB module to be in development for a protocol;
this is still encouraged in a broad sense. This is not meant to be
limiting, however; protocol management and manageability should be
Fenner Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4794 RFC 1264 Is Obsolete December 2006
considered in the context of current IETF management protocols. In
addition, [RTG-REQS] contains a description of a "Manageability
Requirements" section; this is not currently a requirement but should
be considered.
4. Security Considerations
While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the
security-related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the
requirement for a Security Considerations section) suffice.
5. Acknowledgements
Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to
produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to
today's Internet. This work was eventually abandoned when it was
realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings,
Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that
there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the
goals of the IETF.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
October 1991.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
6.2. Informative References
[RTG-REQS] Farrel, A., Andersson, L., and A. Doria, "Requirements for
Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts", Work in
Progress, October 2005.
Author's Address
Bill Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
1 River Oaks Place
San Jose, CA 95134-1918
USA
Phone: +1 408 493-8505
EMail: fenner@research.att.com
Fenner Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4794 RFC 1264 Is Obsolete December 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Fenner Informational [Page 4]
^L
|
