Proposals for a New IETF Standards Track draft-ietf-newtrk-proposals-00.txt David Black Brian Carpenter IETF 60

Goals of the draft Outline various proposals –details expected to be in separate drafts* Outline common ideas –details expected to be in separate drafts Proposals and ideas could be mixed and matched Discuss pros and cons Not: make a recommendation * except for one appendix included for historical reasons

Possible metrics of success Increase interoperability of implementations of new protocols on the Internet (how to measure?) Shorten the time from "adopted idea" to "stable spec" for protocols from 2 years to 1 year (?) Reduce the number of man-hours required to document interoperability and formally acknowledge that it exists (no idea of what to put in the "from" and "to" fields....) Increase motivation of IETF participants to advance their work along the standards track, and increase the attractiveness of the IETF as a standards venue Other metrics?

Common ground WG seems to have rough consensus that regardless of how many levels exist in the standards track, documents will be revised and re-approved (with or without changing level)

Proposal 1: Clean up our act No significant change to RFC 2026, make current system work better, e.g.: –lightweight mechanism for upgrading the status of tried and proven specifications –lightweight mechanism for downgrading unused specifications to Historic status –separate document to record STD status, instead of updating main RFC –general operational improvements

Proposal 2: No more Mr Nice Guy Confirm the intention of RFC 2026 and implement strict procedures to make it work –reduce the strictness of IESG review for PS –enforce "dwell time" at PS by automatically demoting PS documents after 2 years –ditto for DS documents

Proposal 3: Prune the process Prune number of standards levels to two (could call them Draft Standard and Internet Standard). –The threshold for DS would be roughly what PS is today (stricter than PS in RFC 2026 but not requiring proof of interoperability). –The threshold for IS would be a minimum period at DS, plus evidence of interoperability and reasonable deployment experience.

Proposal 4: Slash and burn The number of levels is reduced to one, called Internet Standard. – The threshold would be roughly the same as for Proposed Standard today (roughly what is described in RFC 2026 for Draft Standard, but without the interoperability requirement).

Proposal 5: Declare victory Just revise RFC 2026 to document current practice –elevate the requirements for PS from those in RFC 2026 –state that many important protocols never advance to DS and that Internet Standard is rarely used. –current requirement for review after a 2-year "dwell time" would be changed to a recommendation.

Common ideas Snapshots –WG snapshots: stable drafts declared by WG consensus –IETF snapshots: stable WG drafts approved by ADs or IESG Interoperability and Deployment Register Explicit Version Number Better Process Documentation &Tracking

Draft pros and cons: proposals 1-2 Clean Up Our Act – + should eliminate dross and avoid pointless rewrites – - does nothing to simplify the process No More Mr. Nice Guy – + reduces ambiguity and process black holes – - insensitive to social aspects, may demotivate – - does nothing to simplify the process

Draft pros and cons: proposals 3-5 Prune – + reduces bureaucracy and terminology Slash And Burn – + reduces bureaucracy more Declare Victory – + avoids introducing confusion outside IETF about IETF standards process – - ignores problem statement and does nothing to improve process

Draft pros and cons: common ideas Snapshots – + avoid industry FUD and random implementation choices – - may end up as a class of de facto standards Interoperability Register – + increase clarity about interoperability – - new work for the IETF, new committee Better Process Documentation and Tracking – + central accessible place for important info – - additional work to get that info into a central accessible place and maintain the result

Questions Is any major option missing? Are the descriptions reasonably accurate? How do we refine the pros and cons?