newtrk-1

newtrkNew IETF Standards Track Discussion BOF

• Chair: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>• 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 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

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-5

2.4 Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized

Input from the problem WG

draft-problem-issue-statement-05

Elwyn Davies (editor) elwynd@nortelnetworks.com

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 <http://brandenburg.com/presentations/tw

ostage-minne.ppt>

S. Dawkinsspencer@mcsr-labs.org

C. Perkinscharles.perkins@nokia.com

D. Crockerdcrocker@brandenburg.com

Problems

– Onerous barriers

– Unused stages

– Unused process and false advertising

– Uncoordinated use of drafts

– Cruft in Archive

newtrk-23

Proposal

Proposed Standard

– Go build productGo build product

– Completed specification, same as today

– 1 implementation

– 36 month timeout

Internet Standard

– Successful part of InternetSuccessful part of Internet

– Community adoption and use

Working Group Snapshot

– Formal, working groupworking group “synchronization”, eg., go test go test the specthe spec

– Working group consensus on version of Internet-DraftInternet-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.• 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.

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

• 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

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