4 ms·

This looks neat, and simple enough to very easily adopt if creating a new service. How does the IETF RFC process work? I note this is labeled "Category: Inform

This looks neat, and simple enough to very easily adopt if creating a new service. How does the IETF RFC process work? I note this is labeled "Category: Informational", is it a standard already or to become one? Where can one follow discussions around this (I'm guessing there's a mailing list somewhere?)?

detaro 6y ago
Informational is outside the standards track. In this context more or less "The authors would like to inform you that this is a thing now (e.g. the URI scheme has been registered), you might want to consider using it", but it's not something where a process to develop it further has happened or is expected (which would be the case for a standard), partially because it's just so simple.
tialaramex 6y ago
There are (roughly) two separate ways RFCs can be created, and there are also both "standards track" and otherwise RFCs. Both these are emergent properties rather than having been consciously decided upon at the outset. This was an Independent Submission and it was also not Standards Track. Here's an RFC about the Independent Submission process. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 The IETF takes the pragmatic view that whether something is in fact "a standard" is an observable fact, rather than something they, lacking any enforcement powers, have control over. As a result for most RFCs in Standards Track the end state is "Proposed Standard" although some may eventually get labelled "Internet Standard" when it turns out that's what they are. To the extent you can really "follow discussions" for an independent submission they'll have taken place in the mailing list for the ART (Applications and Real Time) area https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art If you were developing something a bit more substantial, and wanted a community of people to work on that, you'd form an IETF Working Group to do so. The products from such Working Groups are the other major source of RFCs, and some (but far from all) will be Proposed Standards. The decision about what to do, especially if you aren't an experienced participant, is a problem for the IETF group named DISPATCH (or, if it's a security problem, SECDISPATCH). DISPATCH can figure out whether it's a good fit for the IETF ("What is a sandwich?" is not), whether it's something where useful consensus can be achieved ("Should web pages use Javascript?" is not) and what best to do with what you've got. For example: Maybe you want to propose a new protocol for Internet-connected cat flaps. DISPATCH might suggest there's a Working Group already doing related stuff for home pet networking, they could "adopt" your idea, you should write up a draft, submit that, and then get their chairs to have you present your idea to the group. You should probably also join in their discussions meanwhile, you might realise their existing "Pet toy related protocols" are almost what you need anyway and abandon your idea. Or they might say you seem to have a complete working proposal, we can't find anybody else who is interested in this at all, so just submit it as it is. Independent submission is also good where you are in fact documenting a real product that exists regardless. If Apple decided to allow every platform to use iMessage, they could write up an Independent Submission explaining the protocol. Microsoft did this for various protocols years ago. Clearly if it wasn't already a "standard" when Windows did it, it won't be a "standard" just because you wrote an RFC, but at least now we can all agree how it's supposed to work.
EdOverflow 6y ago
I am the author of an Internet Draft (security.txt) that is going through a similar process to Mark Nottingham's RFC above, so I might be able to help. This is an "Informational" specification which means it went via the "Non-Standards Track". You can read more about this process here: https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/ https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-expe.... The Internet Draft (ID) was presented at the DISPATCH meeting session at IETF 103 which includes some discussion at the end of the presentation: https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1183 https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1183. The "Informational" vs "Standards" track topic is actually brought up briefly here: https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1660 https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1660. There were some discussions surrounding the ID in the ART mailing lists: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/52wxNQ4KI-Z_9tFuFL8SjdaFHTg/# https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/52wxNQ4KI-Z_9tFuFL.... You can also see comments by the IESG review board here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8959/ballot/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8959/ballot/. Hope that clears up any confusion. :)

detaro 6y ago

Informational is outside the standards track. In this context more or less "The authors would like to inform you that this is a thing now (e.g. the URI scheme has been registered), you might want to consider using it", but it's not something where a process to develop it further has happened or is expected (which would be the case for a standard), partially because it's just so simple.

tialaramex 6y ago

There are (roughly) two separate ways RFCs can be created, and there are also both "standards track" and otherwise RFCs. Both these are emergent properties rather than having been consciously decided upon at the outset. This was an Independent Submission and it was also not Standards Track. Here's an RFC about the Independent Submission process. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 The IETF takes the pragmatic view that whether something is in fact "a standard" is an observable fact, rather than something they, lacking any enforcement powers, have control over. As a result for most RFCs in Standards Track the end state is "Proposed Standard" although some may eventually get labelled "Internet Standard" when it turns out that's what they are. To the extent you can really "follow discussions" for an independent submission they'll have taken place in the mailing list for the ART (Applications and Real Time) area https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art If you were developing something a bit more substantial, and wanted a community of people to work on that, you'd form an IETF Working Group to do so. The products from such Working Groups are the other major source of RFCs, and some (but far from all) will be Proposed Standards. The decision about what to do, especially if you aren't an experienced participant, is a problem for the IETF group named DISPATCH (or, if it's a security problem, SECDISPATCH). DISPATCH can figure out whether it's a good fit for the IETF ("What is a sandwich?" is not), whether it's something where useful consensus can be achieved ("Should web pages use Javascript?" is not) and what best to do with what you've got. For example: Maybe you want to propose a new protocol for Internet-connected cat flaps. DISPATCH might suggest there's a Working Group already doing related stuff for home pet networking, they could "adopt" your idea, you should write up a draft, submit that, and then get their chairs to have you present your idea to the group. You should probably also join in their discussions meanwhile, you might realise their existing "Pet toy related protocols" are almost what you need anyway and abandon your idea. Or they might say you seem to have a complete working proposal, we can't find anybody else who is interested in this at all, so just submit it as it is. Independent submission is also good where you are in fact documenting a real product that exists regardless. If Apple decided to allow every platform to use iMessage, they could write up an Independent Submission explaining the protocol. Microsoft did this for various protocols years ago. Clearly if it wasn't already a "standard" when Windows did it, it won't be a "standard" just because you wrote an RFC, but at least now we can all agree how it's supposed to work.

EdOverflow 6y ago

I am the author of an Internet Draft (security.txt) that is going through a similar process to Mark Nottingham's RFC above, so I might be able to help. This is an "Informational" specification which means it went via the "Non-Standards Track". You can read more about this process here: https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/ https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-expe.... The Internet Draft (ID) was presented at the DISPATCH meeting session at IETF 103 which includes some discussion at the end of the presentation: https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1183 https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1183. The "Informational" vs "Standards" track topic is actually brought up briefly here: https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1660 https://youtu.be/OAKv4Sc0jhM?t=1660. There were some discussions surrounding the ID in the ART mailing lists: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/52wxNQ4KI-Z_9tFuFL8SjdaFHTg/# https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/52wxNQ4KI-Z_9tFuFL.... You can also see comments by the IESG review board here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8959/ballot/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8959/ballot/. Hope that clears up any confusion. :)