newtrk-1 newtrk New IETF Standards Track Discussion BOF Chair: Scott Bradner Agenda 1/ description of current IETF Standards Track 2/ observations from problem working group 3/ what other SDOs do 4/ proposals for alternate standards track processes 5/ what would define success in a revised IETF Standards track 6/ open discussion

newtrk-2 Current IETF Standards Track same basic track since at least 1988 RFC (IAB Proto Stds) December 1988 –1st stage “Proposed Protocol” (changed in 1990/1) RFCs 1100, 1130, 1140, 1200, & 1250 RFC (Stds Process) March 1992 revision 2: RFC March 1994 revision 3: RFC October ? stages

newtrk-3 RFC 2026 Standards Track (Internet Draft) Proposed Standard (PS) –good idea, no known problems Draft Standard (DS) (min 6-month wait) –stable –multiple interoperable implementations –note IPR restriction Internet Standard (STD) (min 4-month wait) –wide use

newtrk-4 feelings from the Problem WG Elwyn Davies

newtrk Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized Input from the problem WG draft-problem-issue-statement-05 Elwyn Davies (editor)

newtrk-6 HEALTH WARNING The problem WG ….emphasize that both the long list of problems and the root cause issues that we have derived from them are problems that are believed to exist by a significant constituency [in the IETF]

newtrk-7 Root Cause #4 (in no particular order) Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized Intention (RFC2026): Proposed(PS)  Draft(DS)  Full(FS) Situation today: Effectively… A single stage - Proposed –Relatively few standards progress beyond PS

newtrk-8 Subversion and Compression IETF aims to produce effective standards: Demonstrated with running code With multiple, interoperable examples Matured by experience Reduction to a single phase… Subverts the aims Compresses maturation process

newtrk-9 Perception of Higher Quality Bar Perception: IESG has raised the bar for PS –Need to specify a complete system rather than just an interface BUT.. Quality checked by thought experiment (mostly) –PS does not require multiple running and interoperating code instances

newtrk-10 Howlround in Standards A positive feedback loop exists –Increasing pressure on time to market is speeding up the cycle time –Vendors deploy specifications at PS as if they are fully matured –To avoid damage to our reputation, we have responded by trying to make PS specifications ready for prime time Results in baked-in problems

newtrk-11 Cautionary Note Elsewhere in problem issues…. Need to be aware of the market deadline Need to know what the engineering trade- offs are for a piece of work Need to avoid perfectionism

newtrk-12 Lack of Aftercare for Standards Nobody is responsible for maintenance There is no formal bug reporting and tracking system Periodic reviews not being carried out

newtrk-13 Inevitable Consequences The 3-stage standards maturity level process is PERCEIVED (by some IETF participants) as excessive

newtrk-14 What Do Other SDOs do? (jargon parsing: Standards Development Organizations)

newtrk-15 What Other SDOs Do W3C –Working Draft (WD) published for review by the community –Candidate Recommendation (CR) a document that W3C believes has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements –Proposed Recommendation (PR) a mature technical report that, after wide review for technical soundness and implementability, W3C has sent to the W3C Advisory Committee for final endorsement. –W3C Recommendation (REC) a specification or set of guidelines that, after extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement of W3C Members and the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of its Recommendations.

newtrk-16 Other Standards Dev Orgs. ISO GGF ITU-T 3GPP Open Group...

newtrk-17 New Tracks draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00.txt draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt draft-iesg-hardie-outline-00.txt draft-hardie-category-descriptions-00.txt draft-loughney-what-standards-00.txt

newtrk-18 An Idea for an Alternate IETF Standards Track IESG practice raised bar for PS over time –close to old requirement for DS –not let nits go vendors implement from IDs –but IDs change and disappear little difference between DS & S

newtrk-19 Alternate Standards Track (Internet Draft) Stable Snapshot –like old PS w/o much IESG review –immature, pre-standard specifications –note any omissions from requirement Proposed Standard –new PS - IESG cross area review etc –some implementation experience Internet Standard –old DS + S

newtrk-20 Other Ideas draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt draft-iesg-hardie-outline-00.txt draft-hardie-category-descriptions-00.txt draft-loughney-what-standards-00.txt

newtrk-21 Dave Crocker

newtrk-22 Two-Stages and a Label S. Dawkins C. Perkins D. Crocker Problems –Onerous barriers –Unused stages –Unused process and false advertising –Uncoordinated use of drafts –Cruft in Archive

newtrk-23 Proposal Proposed Standard –Go build product –Completed specification, same as today –1 implementation –36 month timeout Internet Standard –Successful part of Internet –Community adoption and use Working Group Snapshot working group go test the spec –Formal, working group “synchronization”, eg., go test the spec Internet-Draft –Working group consensus on version of Internet-Draft –No IETF-level status –IESG opportunity to comment –6 month timeout

newtrk-24 Ted Hardie (very well disguised as Leslie Daigle)

newtrk-25 John Loughney

newtrk-26 Standards, What Standards? The IETF has produced a good body of work. –3655 RFCs at last count –63 STDs People seem to be using our standards. But, there are problems. –Published RFCs never change. Although every published RFC has been submitted to careful proof reading by the RFC Editor and the author(s), errors do sometimes go undetected. As a service to the readers of RFCs, this page contains a list of technical and editorial errors that have been reported to the RFC Editor and verified by the authors or the IESG.

newtrk-27 More Problems Relatively few specifications are now progressed beyond Proposed Standard (PS) There is no formal bug reporting or tracking system in place for IETF specifications. Periodic review of protocols are not being carried out. No individual or body is given the task of 'maintaining' a specification.

newtrk-28 Solutions? Improved errata pages with hyperlinks? Maintanence teams? Early assignment of STD numbers? Enhanced STD numbers?

newtrk-29 Next Steps Incorporate more discussions of solutions. Solicit input for which possible solutions seem reasonable. Apply test cases to the above.

newtrk-30 Appendix bin/rfcsearchTest.plhttp:// bin/rfcsearchTest.pl Based on your search of [Transmission Control Protocol] in the All Fields field 61 matches were found Based on your search of [tcp] in the All Fields field 119 matches were found

newtrk-31 Maintaining Standards musings: by Brian Carpenter

newtrk-32 IPR remember IPR “feature” currently in Draft Standard step

newtrk-33 Defining Success what would define success in a revised IETF Standards track –more advancement (assuming N>1-stage) –fewer ID-based products –better WG/participant understanding –less press stories saying “IETF standard” when referring to IDs –other?

newtrk-34 Discussion

newtrk-35 Discussion is change needed? designated ID stage? stage requiring multiple implementations? N=? (N-stage) maintaining standards IPR hook other?

newtrk-36 Conclusions Scott to say if he thinks there is consensus on specific things –is change needed? –designated ID stage? –stage requiring multiple implementations? –N=? (N-stage) –maintaining standards –IPR hook –other

newtrk-37 Future Steps to WG or not to WG? –how close to consensus are we? –is mailing list discussion enough? now a word from our AD