[ih] "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards"

[Brian E Carpenter]

I'm not sure whether this actually started before RFC1310 (March 1992), but certainly since then there have been multiple steps on the standards track: Proposed Standard, Draft Standard (no longer assigned) and Internet Standard.

(Rumour has it that this started in pure imitation of the ISO standards process. Vint can probably speak to the truth of that.)

But, as I first heard from Fred Baker, "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards", because most IETFers can't be bothered with the bureaucracy to take the next step. Draft Standard was abolished for new work to reduce the bureaucracy, but it hasn't had much effect. We did advance IPv6 to Internet Standard, but most WGs just don't bother.

In any case, the formal "STD" designation doesn't really mean much.

For a current non-IETF effort, I've drawn a diagram about how to interpret the status of RFCs. It can be found at https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/8.%20Further%20Reading/8.%20Further%20Reading.md

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 02-Dec-22 09:52, touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 1:36 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, maybe...
>>
>> RFC5227 describes itself as a proposed standard.  Has it subsequently become an actual standard?   I don't see it in the "Official Internet Protocol Standards" maintained at rfc-editor.org but maybe it had later revisions.
> 
> That distinction isn’t all that significant. There are a LOT of protocols that never progressed beyond the initial “PS” status:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards#PS
> Progression requires not only some specific hurdles, but also the will and effort of someone to walk the spec through that process. The latter is more often the limitation.
> 
>> If it or a descendant is a Standard, does that prevent the creation of "tools" such as the Flakeway I described?  RFCs are full of "SHOULD" and "MUST" directives, which systems such as Flakeway probably violated.  If RFC5227 was universally and correctly implemented, would it prevent someone from implementing a Flakeway-like tool, assuming of course they don't feel the need to follow the RFCs' rules?
>>
>> If RFC5227 et al do in fact prevent such behavior, how does one know whether or not the proscribed mechanisms are actually present in one's equipment?  I just looked and I have 54 devices on my home Ethernet.   Some are wired, some are wifi, and from many different companies.  How do I tell if they've all correctly implemented the mechanisms proscribed in the RFCs?
> 
> The IETF provides no mechanisms for protocol validation. That’s true for all MUSTs, SHOULDs, and MAYs for all protocols.
> 
>> So, is it really "fixed" even today?
>>
>> I guess it depends on how you define "fixed”.
> 
> Doesn’t it always? :-)
> 
> Joe
> 
>