Re: question on process

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> I think we need to come up with some rational conditions under which a
> normative reference to an Informational RFC is acceptable.

never published because it requires a per-instance exception, and a
respected co-worker has convinced me it should be blanket

co-author for next rev solicited

randy

---


Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                                       IIJ
Expires: February 24, 2003                               August 26, 2002


   Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to
                       Documents at a Lower Level
                       draft-ymbk-downref-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not
   have a normative reference to a document at a lower standards level.
   For example a standards track document may not have a normative
   reference to an informational RFC.  There are needs for exceptions to
   this rule, often caused by the IETF using informational RFCs to
   describe non-IETF standards, or IETF-specific modes of use of such
   standards.  This document clarifies the procedure used in these
   circumstances.






Bush                   Expires February 24, 2003                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Docment Down-Ref Clarification          August 2002


1. Normative References Expected to be to Equal or Higher Level

   The Internet Standards Process [RFC2026] Section 4.2.4 specifies:

      Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other
      standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level
      or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
      specifications from other standards bodies.

   The intent is to avoid creating a perception that a standard is more
   mature than it actually is.

2. The Need for Down-References

   There are a number of circumstances where a reference to a document
   at a lower maturity level is needed.

   o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol
      developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or profiled
      by an IETF informational RFC, for example MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC
      [RFC2104]

   o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
      and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
      informational RFCs.

   o  A migration or co-existence document may need to define a
      standards track mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence
      with, an historic protocol.

   o  There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons which force the
      target of the normative reference to be an informational or
      historical RFC, or for it to be at a lower standards level than
      the referring document.


3. Clarifying the Procedure

   [RFC2026] Section 9.2 describes "The Variance Procedure"

      Upon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or,
      if no Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an
      ad hoc committee), the IESG may enter a particular specification
      into, or advance it within, the standards track even though some
      of the requirements of this document have not or will not be met.
      The IESG may approve such a variance, however, only if it first
      determines that the likely benefits to the Internet community are
      likely to outweigh any costs to the Internet community that result



Bush                   Expires February 24, 2003                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Docment Down-Ref Clarification          August 2002


      from noncompliance with the requirements in this document.

   In circumstances described in "The Need for Down-References" (Section
   2), if exception to [RFC2026] Section 4.2.4 is needed, the above
   variance procedure is sparingly applied.  These circumstances are
   unusual and require detailed review and approval as described in
   [RFC2026] Section 9.2.

4. Security Considerations

   This document is not known to create any new vulnerabilities for the
   internet.  On the other hand, inappropriate or excessive use of the
   process might be considered a down-grade attack on the quality of
   IETF standards, or worse, on the rigorous review of security aspects
   of standards.

5. Acknowlegnemts

   This document is the result of discussion within the IESG, with
   particular contribution by Harald Alvestrand, Steve Bellovin, Scott
   Bradner, Ned Freed, Jeff Schiller, and Bert Wijnen.

Normative References

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

Informative References

   [RFC1321]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
              April 1992.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
              1997.


Author's Address

   Randy Bush
   IIJ
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbrisge Island, WA  98110
   US

   Phone: +1 206 780 0431
   EMail: randy@psg.com
   URI:   http://psg.com/~randy/



Bush                   Expires February 24, 2003                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Docment Down-Ref Clarification          August 2002


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

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

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

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

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



















Bush                   Expires February 24, 2003                [Page 4]