newtrk-1

1
newtrkNew IETF Standards Track Discussion BOF

• Chair Scott Bradner ltsob_at_harvard.edugt
• 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

2
Current IETF Standards Track

• same basic track since at least 1988
• RFC 1083 - (IAB Proto Stds) December 1988
• 1st stage Proposed Protocol (changed in 1990/1)
• RFCs 1100, 1130, 1140, 1200, 1250
• RFC 1310 - (Stds Process) March 1992
• revision 2 RFC 1602 - March 1994
• revision 3 RFC 2026 - October 1996
• 3.? stages

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

4

• feelings from the Problem WG
• Elwyn Davies

5
2.4 Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly
Utilized

• Input from the problem WG
• draft-problem-issue-statement-05
• Elwyn Davies (editor) elwynd_at_nortelnetwor
  ks.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13
Inevitable Consequences

• The 3-stage standards maturity level process is
  PERCEIVED(by some IETF participants) as excessive

14

• What Do Other SDOs do?
• (jargon parsing Standards Development
  Organizations)

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.

16
Other Standards Dev Orgs.

• ISO
• GGF
• ITU-T
• 3GPP
• Open Group
• ...

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

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

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

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

21

• Dave Crocker

22
Two-Stages and a Label lthttp//brandenburg.com/pr
esentations/twostage-minne.pptgt

• S. Dawkins
• spencer_at_mcsr-labs.org
• C. Perkins
• charles.perkins_at_nokia.com
• D. Crocker
• dcrocker_at_brandenburg.com

• Problems
• Onerous barriers
• Unused stages
• Unused process and false advertising
• Uncoordinated use of drafts
• Cruft in Archive

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
• Formal, working group synchronization, eg., go
  test the spec
• Working group consensus on version of
  Internet-Draft
• No IETF-level status
• IESG opportunity to comment
• 6 month timeout

24

• Ted Hardie
• (very well disguised as Leslie Daigle)

25

• John Loughney

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.
• http//www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html
• 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.

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.

28
Solutions?

• Improved errata pages with hyperlinks?
• Maintanence teams?
• Early assignment of STD numbers?
• Enhanced STD numbers?

29
Next Steps

• Incorporate more discussions of solutions.
• Solicit input for which possible solutions seem
  reasonable.
• Apply test cases to the above.

30
Appendix

• http//www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-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

31
Maintaining Standards

• musings by Brian Carpenter

32
IPR

• remember IPR feature currently in Draft
  Standard step

33
Defining Success

• what would define success in a revised IETF
  Standards track
• more advancement (assuming Ngt1-stage)
• fewer ID-based products
• better WG/participant understanding
• less press stories saying IETF standard when
  referring to IDs
• other?

34

• Discussion

35
Discussion

• is change needed?
• designated ID stage?
• stage requiring multiple implementations?
• N? (N-stage)
• maintaining standards
• IPR hook
• other?

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

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