Subject: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

From: [email-masked] (Ira Mcdonald x10962)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:08:20 PST

Hi PWG folks,

The requirement for two independent AND interoperable implementations is
ONLY for the transition from Draft Standard to [Official] Standard, per
the excerpt from Internet Official Protocol Standard (RFC 2000), below.
Nonetheless, the best practice is considered to be a proof that BOTH
independent AND interoperable implementations exist BEFORE advancing
from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)

>----------------------------------------------------------------------<
RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997

1.  The Standardization Process

   The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
   define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  See RFC-1601 for
   the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
   and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
   and IRSG, respectively.  The IETF develops these standards with the
   goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
   co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
>  are increasingly in general commercial use.  The definitive
>  description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.

   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
   activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.

   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
   series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
>  number (see RFC-1311).  At each step, the Internet Engineering
>  Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
>  advancement of the protocol.

   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
   standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
   proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
   before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

>  It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
>  draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
>  the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard to
>  standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
>  interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
>  recommendation of the IESG).

   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
   concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
   purpose of recommending an explicit action.

   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
   (it puts the protocol "on the standards track").  Advancement to
   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------<

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 20:24:14 -0800

> from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.

Thats not exactly true. Scott Bradner told Chris, Lloyd, and I (at the
last plenary) that two independent and interoperable implementations is
typically required for advancement to draft standard. This is beared out
in the latest RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3",
section 4.1.2 specifically.

Randy