IETF process

The IETF community will treat people with kindness and grace, but not endless patience.

This memo obsoletes RFCs 3683 and 3934, and it updates RFCs 2418 and 9245 by establishing a policy for the moderation of disruptive participation across the IETF's various public contribution channels and discussion fora. It establishes guardrails for moderation and a moderator team. That team will develop a set of moderation procedures and facilitate their consistent implementation with chairs and administrators.

This document describes the code of conduct for participants in the

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).

The IRTF believes that research is most effective when done in an

open and inclusive forum that encourages diversity of ideas and

participation. Through this code of conduct, the IRTF continues to

strive to create and maintain an environment that encourages broad

participation, and one in which people are treated with dignity,

decency, and respect.

This document is a product of the Internet Research Steering Group

(IRSG).

Following a review of the IETF meeting venue requirements, this document updates RFC 8718 ("IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process"), clarifies how the IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) should interpret some elements of RFC 8718, and specifies a replacement exploratory meeting process, thereby updating RFC 8719 ("High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy of the IETF").

This document provides education and guidance for IETF participants on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust risks in connection with IETF activities.

This document retires and obsoletes the Tao of the IETF as an IETF-maintained document. This document also obsoletes RFC 6722, which describes the publication process of the Tao. Furthermore, this document describes the rationale for the retirement of the Tao. For archival purposes, the last version of the Tao is included in the appendix. Information that new participants need to engage in the work of the IETF will continue to be provided through the IETF website in a more timely and accessible manner. This is the way.

Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802 parameters. This document discusses several aspects of such parameters and their use in IETF protocols, specifies IANA considerations for assignment of points under the IANA Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and provides some values for use in documentation. This document obsoletes RFC 7042.

This document describes network slicing in the context of networks built from IETF technologies. It defines the term "IETF Network Slice" to describe this type of network slice and establishes the general principles of network slicing in the IETF context.

The document discusses the general framework for requesting and operating IETF Network Slices, the characteristics of an IETF Network Slice, the necessary system components and interfaces, and the mapping of abstract requests to more specific technologies. The document also discusses related considerations with monitoring and security.

This document also provides definitions of related terms to enable consistent usage in other IETF documents that describe or use aspects of IETF Network Slices.

This document outlines a principle for open participation that

extends the open process principle defined in RFC 3935 by stating

that there must be a free option for online participation to IETF

meetings and, if possible, related IETF-hosted events.

This document discusses principles for designing mechanisms that use or provide path signals and calls for standards action in specific valuable cases. RFC 8558 describes path signals as messages to or from on-path elements and points out that visible information will be used whether or not it is intended as a signal. The principles in this document are intended as guidance for the design of explicit path signals, which are encouraged to be authenticated and include a minimal set of parties to minimize information sharing. These principles can be achieved through mechanisms like encryption of information and establishing trust relationships between entities on a path.

The main goal of the networking standards process is to enable the long-term interoperability of protocols. This document describes active protocol maintenance, a means to accomplish that goal. By evolving specifications and implementations, it is possible to reduce ambiguity over time and create a healthy ecosystem.

The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and implementation of Internet protocols. However, it has been interpreted in a variety of ways. While some interpretations help ensure the health of the Internet, others can negatively affect interoperability over time. When a protocol is actively maintained, protocol designers and implementers can avoid these pitfalls.

This document provides guidelines for the planning and organization of fully online meetings, regarding the number, length, and composition of sessions on the meeting agenda. These guidelines are based on the experience gained by holding online meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

The "Show me the numbers: Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID)" workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from November 29 to December 2, 2021 and hosted by the IN-SIGHT.it project at the University of Amsterdam; however, it was converted to an online-only event. The workshop was organized into two discussion parts with a hackathon activity in between. This report summarizes the workshop's discussion and identifies topics that warrant future work and consideration.

Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB views and positions.

IETF Hackathons encourage the IETF community to collaborate on running code related to existing and evolving Internet standards. This document provides a set of practices that have been used for running IETF Hackathons. These practices apply to Hackathons in which both in-person and remote participation are possible, with adaptations for Hackathons that are online only.

This document describes the individuals and organizations involved in the IETF standards process, as described in BCP 9. It includes brief descriptions of the entities involved and the role they play in the standards process.

The IETF and its structure have undergone many changes since RFC 2028 was published in 1996. This document reflects the changed organizational structure of the IETF and obsoletes RFC 2028.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through the general discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude in terms of topics is allowed, but there are posts and topics that are unsuitable for this mailing list. This document defines the charter for the IETF discussion list and explains its scope.

This document obsoletes RFC 3005 and updates RFC 3683.

The IETF FTP service running at ftp.ietf.org, ops.ietf.org, and ietf.org will be retired. A number of published RFCs in the IETF and IAB streams include URIs that reference this FTP service. To ensure that the materials referenced using the IETF FTP service can still be found, this document updates the FTP-based references in these affected documents with HTTPS URIs.

The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss issues and advance the Internet. However, various events can make a planned in-person meeting infeasible. This document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to relocate, virtualize, postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

Source-specific routing, also known as Source Address Dependent Routing (SADR), is an extension to traditional next-hop routing where packets are forwarded according to both their destination address and their source address. This document describes an extension for source-specific routing to the Babel routing protocol.

This document presents the author's effort to understand the delays involved in publishing an idea in the IETF or through the Independent Stream, from the first individual draft to the publication of the RFC. We analyze a set of randomly chosen RFCs approved in 2018, looking for history and delays. We also use two randomly chosen sets of RFCs published in 2008 and 1998 for comparing delays seen in 2018 to those observed 10 or 20 years ago. The average RFC in the 2018 sample was produced in 3 years and 4 months, of which 2 years and 10 months were spent in the working group, 3 to 4 months for IETF consensus and IESG review, and 3 to 4 months in RFC production. The main variation in RFC production delays comes from the AUTH48 phase.

We also measure the number of citations of the chosen RFC using Semantic Scholar, and compare citation counts with what we know about deployment. We show that citation counts indicate academic interest, but correlate only loosely with deployment or usage of the specifications. Counting web references could complement that.

This document provides a set of guidelines for working groups that choose to use GitHub for their work.

The use of GitHub in IETF working group processes is increasing. This document describes uses and conventions for working groups that are considering starting to use GitHub. It does not mandate any processes and does not require changes to the processes used by current and future working groups not using GitHub.

This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of computing diverse (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a Path Computation Element (PCE) that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Disjoint Association Group; thus, the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.

This document defines two strategies for handling long lines in width-bounded text content. One strategy, called the "single backslash" strategy, is based on the historical use of a single backslash ('\') character to indicate where line-folding has occurred, with the continuation occurring with the first character that is not a space character (' ') on the next line. The second strategy, called the "double backslash" strategy, extends the first strategy by adding a second backslash character to identify where the continuation begins and is thereby able to handle cases not supported by the first strategy. Both strategies use a self-describing header enabling automated reconstitution of the original content.

This document requires that the IETF never publish any IETF Stream RFCs without IETF rough consensus. This updates RFC 2026.

The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) was originally established in 2005. In the years since then, the needs of the IETF evolved in ways that required changes to its administrative structure. The purpose of this RFC is to document and describe the IETF Administrative Support Activity, version 2.0 (IASA 2.0). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administration LLC Board (IETF LLC Board), the IETF Executive Director, and the Internet Society in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IETF LLC Board.

This document obsoletes RFC 4071, RFC 4333, and RFC 7691.

This document summarizes the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) - Internet Society (ISOC) relationship, following a major revision to the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in 2018. The IASA was revised under a new "IASA 2.0" structure by the IASA2 Working Group, which changed the IETF's administrative, legal, and financial structure. As a result, it also changed the relationship between the IETF and ISOC, which made it necessary to revise RFC 2031.

The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified in this document. This document is based on RFC 7437. Only those updates required to reflect the changes introduced by IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) 2.0 have been included. Any other changes will be addressed in future documents.

This document obsoletes RFC 7437 and RFC 8318.

This memo updates the process for selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust. Previously, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) members also acted as Trustees, but the IAOC has been eliminated as part of an update to the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). This memo specifies that the Trustees shall be selected separately.

This memo obsoletes RFC 4371. The changes relate only to the selection of Trustees. All other aspects of the IETF Trust remain as they are today.

This document captures the rationale for the changes introduced in RFC 8714, "Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust".

At the time RFC 8714 was published, the changes to the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0 (IASA 2.0) had an impact on the IETF Trust because members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which was being phased out, had served as Trustees of the IETF Trust. This document provides background on the past IETF Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the founding documents during the transition to the new arrangement, and provides a rationale for the update.

The IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures are described in RFC 7776.

The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has been replaced by the IETF Administration LLC, and the IETF Administrative Director has been replaced by the IETF LLC Executive Director. This document updates RFC 7776 to amend these terms.

RFC 7776 contained updates to RFC 7437. RFC 8713 has incorporated those updates, so this document also updates RFC 7776 to remove those updates.

In 2018, the IETF began the transition to a new administrative structure and updated its IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) to a new "IASA 2.0" structure. In addition to more substantive changes that are described in other documents, the transition to the 2018 IETF Administrative Support structure changes several position titles and organizational relationships that are referenced elsewhere. Rather than reissue those referencing documents individually, this specification provides updates to them and deprecates some now-obsolete documents to ensure that there is no confusion due to these changes.

The IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) is responsible for arranging the selection and operation of the IETF plenary meeting venue. This memo specifies IETF community requirements for meeting venues, including hotels and meeting space. It also directs the IASA to make available additional process documents that describe the current meeting selection process.

This document describes a meeting location policy for the IETF and the various stakeholders required to realize this policy.

Contributors grant intellectual property rights to the IETF. The IETF Trust holds and manages those rights on behalf of the IETF. The Trustees of the IETF Trust are responsible for that management. This management includes granting the licenses to copy, implement, and otherwise use IETF Contributions, among them Internet-Drafts and RFCs. The Trustees of the IETF Trust accept direction from the IETF regarding the rights to be granted. This document describes the desires of the IETF regarding outbound rights to be granted in IETF Contributions. This document obsoletes RFC 5377 solely for the purpose of removing references to the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which was part of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Many Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocols make use of commonly defined values that are passed in messages or packets. To ensure consistent interpretation of these values between independent implementations, there is a need to ensure that the values and associated semantic intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses registry functions to record assigned protocol parameter values and their associated semantic intentions. For each IETF protocol parameter, it is current practice for the IETF to delegate the role of Protocol Parameter Registry Operator to a nominated entity. This document provides a description of, and the requirements for, these delegated functions. This document obsoletes RFC 6220 to replace all references to the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.

RSVP-TE provides support for the communication of exclusion information during Label Switched Path (LSP) setup. A typical LSP diversity use case is for protection, where two LSPs should follow different paths through the network in order to avoid single points of failure, thus greatly improving service availability. This document specifies an approach that can be used for network scenarios where the full path(s) is not necessarily known by use of an abstract identifier for the path. Three types of abstract identifiers are specified: client based, Path Computation Element (PCE) based, and network based. This document specifies two new diversity subobjects for the RSVP eXclude Route Object (XRO) and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS).

For the protection use case, LSPs are typically created at a slow rate and exist for a long time so that it is reasonable to assume that a given (reference) path currently existing (with a well-known identifier) will continue to exist and can be used as a reference when creating the new diverse path. Re-routing of the existing (reference) LSP, before the new path is established, is not considered.

This document defines the ChaCha20 stream cipher as well as the use of the Poly1305 authenticator, both as stand-alone algorithms and as a "combined mode", or Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm.

RFC 7539, the predecessor of this document, was meant to serve as a stable reference and an implementation guide. It was a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG). This document merges the errata filed against RFC 7539 and adds a little text to the Security Considerations section.

RFC 5485 specifies the conventions for digital signatures on Internet-Drafts. The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) is used to create a detached signature, which is stored in a separate companion file so that no existing utilities are impacted by the addition of the digital signature.

The RFC Editor recently published the first RFC that includes non- ASCII characters in a text file. The conventions specified in RFC 7997 were followed. We assume that non-ASCII characters will soon start appearing in Internet-Drafts as well. This document updates the handling of digital signatures on Internet-Drafts that contain non-ASCII characters in a text file.

This document updates RFC 5485.

This document describes how the transport protocols Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), MultiPath TCP (MPTCP), Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) expose services to applications and how an application can configure and use the features that make up these services. It also discusses the service provided by the Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT) congestion control mechanism. The description results in a set of transport abstractions that can be exported in a transport services (TAPS) API.

The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This document updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document also obsoletes RFCs 3979 and 4879.

IEEE Std 802.15.4 defines Information Elements (IEs) that can be used to extend 802.15.4 in an interoperable manner. The IEEE 802.15 Assigned Numbers Authority (ANA) manages the registry of the Information Elements. This document formulates a request for ANA to allocate a number from that registry for the IETF and describes how the IE is formatted to provide subtypes.

This memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes an appointment to the ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC).

This document describes, surveys, and classifies the protocol mechanisms provided by existing IETF protocols, as background for determining a common set of transport services. It examines the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), Multipath TCP, the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP), File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport / Asynchronous Layered Coding (FLUTE/ALC) for Reliable Multicast, NACK- Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM), Transport Layer Security (TLS), Datagram TLS (DTLS), and the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP), when HTTP is used as a pseudotransport. This survey provides background for the definition of transport services within the TAPS working group.

This document outlines the procedures by which the IETF makes appointments to the Community Coordination Group (CCG), which provides advice and guidance to the IETF Trust in matters related to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names.

RFC 3967 specifies a process for allowing normative references to documents at lower maturity levels ("downrefs"), which involves calling out the downref explicitly in the Last Call notice. That requirement has proven to be unnecessarily strict, and this document updates RFC 3967, allowing the IESG more flexibility in accepting downrefs in Standards Track documents.

This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.

This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.

The PIM Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV defined in RFC 5496 can be included in a PIM Join Attribute such that the RPF neighbor is selected based on the unicast reachability of the RPF Vector instead of the source or Rendezvous Point associated with the multicast tree.

This document defines a new RPF Vector Attribute type such that an explicit RPF neighbor list can be encoded in the PIM Join Attribute, thus bypassing the unicast route lookup.

This document describes the Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP), a generic state synchronization protocol that uses the Trickle algorithm and hash trees. DNCP is an abstract protocol and must be combined with a specific profile to make a complete implementable protocol.

The web-based IETF email archive search tool based on the requirements captured in RFC 6778 was deployed in January 2014. This memo captures the requirements for a set of improvements that have been identified during its initial years of community use.

This document briefly describes the role of the Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), discusses its duties, and outlines the skill set a candidate for the role should ideally have.

IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating in mailing lists. This document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.

This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group guidelines and procedures. This document updates RFC 7437 by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further signatories.

This is the Statement of Work (SOW) for extensions to the IETF Datatracker to provide statistics about RFCs and Internet-Drafts and their authors.

Several review teams ensure specific types of review are performed on Internet-Drafts as they progress towards becoming RFCs. The tools used by these teams to assign and track reviews would benefit from tighter integration to the Datatracker. This document discusses requirements for improving those tools without disrupting current work flows.

The process of producing today's Internet technologies through a culture of open participation and diverse collaboration has proved strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among standards organizations. During the early years of the IETF and its antecedent, participation was almost entirely composed of a small group of well-funded, American, white, male technicians, demonstrating a distinctive and challenging group dynamic, both in management and in personal interactions. In the case of the IETF, interaction style can often contain singularly aggressive behavior, often including singularly hostile tone and content. Groups with greater diversity make better decisions. Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic good will and statements of principle. Many different behaviors can serve to reduce participant diversity or participation diversity. This document discusses IETF participation in terms of the nature of diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it. The document represents the authors' assessments and recommendations, following general discussions of the issues in the IETF.

During IETF meetings, individual volunteers often help sessions run more smoothly by relaying information back and forth between the physical meeting room and an associated textual chatroom. Such volunteers are commonly called "Jabber scribes". This document summarizes experience with the Jabber scribe role and provides some suggestions for fulfilling the role at IETF meetings.

This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance. It presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network devices to improve the performance of today's Internet. It also urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification.

Based on 15 years of experience and new research, this document replaces the recommendations of RFC 2309.

This document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area". This document updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25).

This document records the transfer of responsibility for the Ethernet-related MIB modules DOT3-OAM-MIB, SNMP-REPEATER-MIB, POWER-ETHERNET-MIB, DOT3-EPON-MIB, EtherLike-MIB, EFM-CU-MIB, ETHER-WIS, and MAU-MIB from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 Working Group (WG). This document also describes the procedures associated with the transfer in a similar way to how RFC 4663 records the transfer of the IETF Bridge MIB work to the IEEE 802.1 WG.

This document provides a high-level description of things for Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) participants to consider when bringing proposals for new research groups (RGs) into the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). This document emphasizes differences in expectations between the two organizations.

This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance RFC 2680, a performance metric RFC defining one-way packet loss metrics, along the Standards Track. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2680.

This document describes the standardization cooperation between Project 802 of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This document obsoletes RFC 4441.

Note: This document was collaboratively developed by authors from both the IEEE 802 and IETF leadership and was reviewed and approved by the IEEE 802 Executive Committee prior to publication.

This document provides a summary of the IAB/IRTF Workshop on 'Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time Communication', which took place in Vancouver, Canada, on July 28, 2012. The main goal of the workshop was to foster a discussion on congestion control mechanisms for interactive real-time communication. This report summarizes the discussions and lists recommendations to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community.

The views and positions in this report are those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect the views and positions of the authors, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), or the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).

The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through a consensus process, taking into account the different views among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are letting the majority win the day without consideration of minority concerns. This document explains some features of rough consensus, what is not rough consensus, how we have gotten away from it, how we might think about it differently, and the things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus.

Note: This document is quite consciously being put forward as Informational. It does not propose to change any IETF processes and is therefore not a BCP. It is simply a collection of principles, hopefully around which the IETF can come to (at least rough) consensus.

The productive output of an IETF working group is documents, as mandated by the working group's charter. When a working group is ready to develop a particular document, the most common mechanism is for it to "adopt" an existing document as a starting point. The document that a working group adopts and then develops further is based on initial input at varying levels of maturity. An initial working group draft might be a document already in wide use, or it might be a blank sheet, wholly created by the working group, or it might represent any level of maturity in between. This document discusses how a working group typically handles the formal documents that it targets for publication.

A straightforward approach to provide protection against packet losses due to network outages with a longest duration of T time units is to duplicate the original packets and send each copy separated in time by at least T time units. This approach is commonly referred to as "time-shifted redundancy", "temporal redundancy", or simply "delayed duplication". This document defines an attribute to indicate the presence of temporally redundant media streams and the duplication delay in the Session Description Protocol.

RFC 4412 defines the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority Priority-values" registries. The management policy of these registries is "Standards Action". This document normatively updates RFC 4412 to change the management policy of these registries to "IETF Review".

This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work.

This document is an updated version of the guidelines for conduct originally published in RFC 3184.

RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and characterizes the maturity level of those documents. This document updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate characterization of Proposed Standards.

This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply. This process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC, which would normally trigger code point allocation. The procedures in this document are intended to apply only to IETF Stream documents.

The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is based on a profile of the MPLS and Pseudowire (PW) procedures as specified in the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE), PW, and Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) architectures developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has specified a Transport Network architecture.

This document provides a thesaurus for the interpretation of MPLS-TP terminology within the context of the ITU-T Transport Network Recommendations.

It is important to note that MPLS-TP is applicable in a wider set of contexts than just Transport Networks. The definitions presented in this document do not provide exclusive or complete interpretations of MPLS-TP concepts. This document simply allows the MPLS-TP terms to be applied within the Transport Network context.

This document updates RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1 as a summary of "Internet Official Protocol Standards". It obsoletes RFC 5000 and requests the IESG to move RFC 5000 (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status.

At one time, the RFC Editor published snapshots of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards". These documents were known as xx00 documents, the last of which was published in May 2008. These snapshots have been replaced by a web page, so the RFC Editor will no longer be publishing these snapshots as RFCs. As a result, the RFC Editor will classify unpublished RFC xx00 numbers through 7000 as never issued. Starting with the RFC number 7100, xx00 numbers will be available for assignment.

The IETF makes heavy use of email lists to conduct its work. This often involves accessing the archived history of those email lists. Participants would like to have the ability to browse and search those archives using standard IMAP clients. This memo captures the requirements for providing a service that would allow such browsing and searching, and it is intended as input to a later activity for the design and development of such a service.

The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Collectively, these specifications are known as SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE). This document serves as a guide to the SIMPLE suite of specifications. It categorizes the specifications, explains what each is for, and how they relate to each other.

RFC 2648 defines the "ietf" URN namespace and a number of sub- namespaces. RFC 3553 defines an additional sub-namespace, "params", and creates a registry to document allocations under that. But there is no registry that lists, in one place, all sub-namespaces of "ietf". This document creates and populates such a registry, thereby changing the mechanism defined in RFC 2648 for adding new sub- namespaces of "ietf".

On 29 August 2012, the leaders of the IEEE Standards Association, the IAB, the IETF, the Internet Society, and the W3C signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. These principles have become known as the "OpenStand" principles. This document contains the text of the affirmation that was signed. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

Cisco's Service-Level Assurance Protocol (Cisco's SLA Protocol) is a Performance Measurement protocol that has been widely deployed. The protocol is used to measure service-level parameters such as network latency, delay variation, and packet/frame loss. This document describes the Cisco SLA Protocol Measurement-Type UDP-Measurement, to enable vendor interoperability. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance RFC 2679 on one-way delay metrics along the Standards Track, following the process in RFC 6576. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2679. This memo also provides direct input for development of a revision of RFC 2679. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The IETF makes heavy use of email lists to conduct its work. Participants frequently need to search and browse the archives of these lists and have asked for improved search capabilities. The current archive mechanism could also be made more efficient. This memo captures the requirements for improved email list archiving and searching systems. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

New work is typically brought to the IETF by a group of interested individuals. IETF meetings are a convenient place for such groups to hold informal get-togethers to discuss and develop their ideas. Such side meetings, which are not reflected in the IETF meeting agenda and have no official status, are often half-jokingly referred to as "bar BOF" sessions to acknowledge that some of them may eventually lead to a proposal for an official IETF BOF ("birds of a feather" session) on a given topic.

During recent IETF meetings, many such "bar BOF" get-togethers have been organized and moderated in ways that made them increasingly indistinguishable from official IETF BOFs or sometimes even IETF working group meetings.

This document argues that this recent trend is not helpful in reaching the ultimate goal of many of these get-togethers, i.e., to efficiently discuss and develop ideas for new IETF work. It encourages the organizers to consider the benefits of holding them in much less formal settings and to also consider alternative means to develop their ideas. This document also recommends that the community abandon the term "bar BOF" and instead use other terms such as "side meeting", in order to stress the unofficial nature of these get-togethers. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document defines the requirements for a set of tools for use by the IETF Nominations Committee. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document provides guidance to aid in the understanding of collaboration on standards development between the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society (ISOC). It is an update of and obsoletes RFC 3356. The updates reflect changes in the IETF and ITU-T since RFC 3356 was written. The bulk of this document is common text with ITU-T A Series Supplement 3 (07/2012).

Note: This was approved by TSAG on 4 July 2012 as Supplement 3 to the ITU-T A-Series of Recommendations.

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.

The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously. However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by whom those sanctions are to be applied.

This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in cases related to patents. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document attempts to provide a list of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed by IETF meeting attendees regarding travel logistics and local information. It is intended to assist those who are willing to provide local information, so that if they wish to pre-populate answers to some or all of these questions either in the IETF wiki or a meeting-specific site, they have a reasonably complete list of ideas to draw from. It is not meant as a list of required information that the host or Secretariat needs to provide; it merely serves as a guideline. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document gives an overview of the IETF network management standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF Standards Track network management protocols and data models. The document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this document is, on the one hand, to help system developers and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management technologies and data models. This document does not cover Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) technologies on the data-path, e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM, and pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and specifying an interactive audio codec within the IETF. These guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and intellectual property issues. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document contains recommendations on how Internet Service Providers can use various remediation techniques to manage the effects of malicious bot infestations on computers used by their subscribers. Internet users with infected computers are exposed to risks such as loss of personal data and increased susceptibility to online fraud. Such computers can also become inadvertent participants in or components of an online crime network, spam network, and/or phishing network as well as be used as a part of a distributed denial-of-service attack. Mitigating the effects of and remediating the installations of malicious bots will make it more difficult for botnets to operate and could reduce the level of online crime on the Internet in general and/or on a particular Internet Service Provider's network. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document provides a summary of issues related to the use of A6 records, discusses the current status, and moves RFC 2874 to Historic status, providing clarity to implementers and operators. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document specifies an Extension to BCP 47 that provides subtags for specifying the source language or script of transformed content, including content that has been transliterated, transcribed, or translated, or in some other way influenced by the source. It also provides for additional information used for identification. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The IETF intends to provide a new tool to Working Group chairs and Area Directors for the creation and updating of milestones for Working Group charters. This document describes the requirements for the proposed new tool, and it is intended as input to a later activity for the design and development of such a tool. This document updates RFC 6292. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The development of new technology is driven by scientific research. The Internet, with its roots in the ARPANET and NSFNet, is no exception. Many of the fundamental, long-term improvements to the architecture, security, end-to-end protocols and management of the Internet originate in the related academic research communities. Even shorter-term, more commercially driven extensions are oftentimes derived from academic research. When interoperability is required, the IETF standardizes such new technology. Timely and relevant standardization benefits from continuous input and review from the academic research community.

For an individual researcher, it can however be quite puzzling how to begin to most effectively participate in the IETF and arguably to a much lesser degree, the IRTF. The interactions in the IETF are much different than those in academic conferences, and effective participation follows different rules. The goal of this document is to highlight such differences and provide a rough guideline that will hopefully enable researchers new to the IETF to become successful contributors more quickly. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) has been doing reviews of Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) since 2004. This document discusses the experience and the lessons learned over the past 7 years of this process. The review team initially reviewed the I-Ds before each of the IESG telechats. Since late 2005, review team members have been assigned to review I-Ds during IETF Last Call, unless no IETF Last Call is necessary for the I-D. The same reviewer then reviews any updates when the I-D is placed on an IESG telechat agenda. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026. Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

This document moves RFC 4693 to Historic status. It also obsoletes RFC 4693. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC Editor state information into the Datatracker to provide the community with a unified tool to track the status of their document as it progresses from Internet-Draft (I-D) version -00 to RFC. Extending the Datatracker to hold document data from I-D version -00 to RFC allows for increased automation between the Datatracker, IANA, and RFC Editor, thus reducing manual labor, processing errors, and potential delay. Therefore, this document also describes the requirements to make such automation possible. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document provides a list of terms used in the IETF when discussing internationalization. The purpose is to help frame discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

This document describes extending the IETF Datatracker to capture and display the progression of Internet-Drafts that are intended to be published as RFCs by the IAB, IRTF, or Independent Submissions Editor. The states and annotations that are to be added to the Datatracker will be applied to Internet-Drafts as soon as any of these streams identify the Internet-Draft as a potential eventual RFC, and will continue through the lifetime of the Internet-Draft. The goal of adding this information to the Datatracker is to give the whole Internet community more information about the status of these Internet-Drafts and the streams from which they originate. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes the implementation of Apple Inc.'s Back to My Mac (BTMM) service. BTMM provides network connectivity between devices so that a user can perform file sharing and screen sharing among multiple computers at home, at work, or on the road. The implementation of BTMM addresses the issues of single sign-on authentication, secure data communication, service discovery, and end-to-end connectivity in the face of Network Address Translators (NATs) and mobility of devices. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The IETF intends to provide a new tool to Area Directors for the creation, re-chartering, and closing of Working Groups. The tool will also allow the IETF community to view the status of the chartering process. This document describes the requirements for the proposed new tool, and it is intended as input to a later activity for the design and development of such a tool. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The document gives a set of requirements for extending the IETF Datatracker to give individual IETF community members, including the IETF leadership, easy methods for tracking the progress of the Internet-Drafts and RFCs of interest to them. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This note identifies the key infrastructure protocols of the Internet Protocol Suite for use in the Smart Grid. The target audience is those people seeking guidance on how to construct an appropriate Internet Protocol Suite profile for the Smart Grid. In practice, such a profile would consist of selecting what is needed for Smart Grid deployment from the picture presented here. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

At first glance, the acronym "OAM" seems to be well-known and well-understood. Looking at the acronym a bit more closely reveals a set of recurring problems that are revisited time and again.

This document provides a definition of the acronym "OAM" (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) for use in all future IETF documents that refer to OAM. There are other definitions and acronyms that will be discussed while exploring the definition of the constituent parts of the "OAM" term. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally sign them. The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System. In practice, this was never done on the public Internet. This document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to Historic status. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This RFC provides a framework for transporting ANSI C12.22/IEEE 1703/MC12.22 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Application Layer Messages on an IP network.

This document is not an official submission on behalf of the ANSI C12.19 and C12.22 working groups. It was created by participants in those groups, building on knowledge of several proprietary C12.22- over-IP implementations. The content of this document is an expression of a consensus aggregation of those implementations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began reconsidering the policy in 2005. This document obsoletes the RFC 3177 recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for the operational community. The IETF's role in this case is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original recommendations in RFC 3177. Moreover, this document clarifies that a one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default.

This document obsoletes RFC 3177. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

The IETF Datatracker tool needs to be enhanced to make it possible for Working Group (WG) Chairs to provide IETF participants with more information about the status and progression of WG documents than is currently possible.

This document defines new states and status annotation tags that need to be added to the Datatracker to enable WG Chairs and their Delegates to track the status of Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that are associated with their WGs. This document also describes the meaning of all previously implemented I-D states and substate annotation tags currently used by IETF Area Directors to indicate the status of I-Ds that have been sent to the IESG for evaluation and publication. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document specifies requirements for new functionality to be added to the IETF Datatracker tool to make it possible for Working Group (WG) Chairs and their Delegates to input and update the status of the Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) associated with their WGs. After these requirements are implemented, WG Chairs will be able to use the Datatracker to provide everyone with more information about the status and progression of WG I-Ds than is currently possible. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

RFB ("remote framebuffer") is a simple protocol for remote access to graphical user interfaces that allows a client to view and control a window system on another computer. Because it works at the framebuffer level, RFB is applicable to all windowing systems and applications. This document describes the protocol used to communicate between an RFB client and RFB server. RFB is the protocol used in VNC. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document specifies an Extension to BCP 47 that provides subtags that specify language and/or locale-based behavior or refinements to language tags, according to work done by the Unicode Consortium. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes how to use information associated with a trust anchor public key when validating certification paths. This information can be used to constrain the usage of a trust anchor. Typically, constraints are used to limit the certificate policies and names that can appear in certification paths validated using a trust anchor. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document defines the Device Owner attribute. It indicates the entity (e.g., company, organization, department, agency) that owns the device. This attribute may be included in public key certificates and attribute certificates. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document defines the clearance sponsor attribute. It indicates the entity that sponsored (i.e., granted) the clearance. This attribute is intended for use in public key certificates and attribute certificates that also include the clearance attribute. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document obsoletes RFC 2731, "Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML", as further development of this specification has moved to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes the properties and use of a revised Microsoft Word template (.dot) for writing Internet Drafts and RFCs. It replaces the initial template described in RFC 3285 to more fully support Word's outline modes and to be easier to use. This template can be direct-printed and direct-viewed, where either is line-for-line identical with RFC Editor-compliant ASCII output. This version obsoletes RFC 3285.

The most recent version of this template and post-processing scripts are available at http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes an envelope that can be used to bind a file (not necessarily protected by means of cryptographic techniques) with one or more time-stamp tokens obtained for that file, where "time-stamp token" has the meaning defined in RFC 3161 or its successors. Additional types of temporal evidence are also allowed.

The proposed envelope is based on the Cryptographic Message Syntax as defined in RFC 5652. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

The Media Server Markup Language (MSML) is used to control and invoke many different types of services on IP media servers. The MSML control interface was initially driven by RadiSys with subsequent significant contributions from Intel, Dialogic, and others in the industry. Clients can use it to define how multimedia sessions interact on a media server and to apply services to individuals or groups of users. MSML can be used, for example, to control media server conferencing features such as video layout and audio mixing, create sidebar conferences or personal mixes, and set the properties of media streams. As well, clients can use MSML to define media processing dialogs, which may be used as parts of application interactions with users or conferences. Transformation of media streams to and from users or conferences as well as interactive voice response (IVR) dialogs are examples of such interactions, which are specified using MSML. MSML clients may also invoke dialogs with individual users or with groups of conference participants using VoiceXMLThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes the procedures used by the IESG for handling documents submitted for RFC publication from the Independent Submission and IRTF streams.

This document updates procedures described in RFC 2026 and RFC 3710. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

This memo defines the publication stream for RFCs from the Internet Research Task Force. Most documents undergoing this process will come from IRTF Research Groups, and it is expected that they will be published as Informational or Experimental RFCs by the RFC Editor. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

Advancing a protocol to Draft Standard requires documentation of the interoperation and implementation of the protocol. Historic reports have varied widely in form and level of content and there is little guidance available to new report preparers. This document updates the existing processes and provides more detail on what is appropriate in an interoperability and implementation report. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

This document reports the outcome of a workshop organized by the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Directors of the IETF to discuss network delay and congestion issues resulting from increased Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic volumes. The workshop was held on May 28, 2008 at MIT in Cambridge, MA, USA. The goals of the workshop were twofold: to understand the technical problems that ISPs and end users are experiencing as a result of high volumes of P2P traffic, and to begin to understand how the IETF may be helpful in addressing these problems. Gaining an understanding of where in the IETF this work might be pursued and how to extract feasible work items were highlighted as important tasks in pursuit of the latter goal. The workshop was very well attended and produced several work items that have since been taken up by members of the IETF community. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document specifies the conventions for digital signatures on Internet-Drafts. The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) is used to create a detached signature, which is stored in a separate companion file so that no existing utilities are impacted by the addition of the digital signature. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document discusses tactics and strategy for hosting a successful IETF Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session, especially one oriented at the formation of an IETF Working Group. It is based on the experiences of having participated in numerous BOFs, both successful and unsuccessful. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

The Internet community has specified a large number of protocols to date, and these protocols have achieved varying degrees of success. Based on case studies, this document attempts to ascertain factors that contribute to or hinder a protocol's success. It is hoped that these observations can serve as guidance for future protocol work. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This memo references three annotated templates for IETF documents that contain the definition of MIB modules. It is intended to reduce the work of the editors of such documents, making these documents more uniform and easier to read and review, thus furthering the quality of such documents and expediting their publication. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

This document describes eight Diffie-Hellman groups that can be used in conjunction with IETF protocols to provide security for Internet communications. The groups allow implementers to use the same groups with a variety of security protocols, e.g., SMIME, Secure SHell (SSH), Transport Layer Security (TLS), and Internet Key Exchange (IKE).

All of these groups comply in form and structure with relevant standards from ISO, ANSI, NIST, and the IEEE. These groups are compatible with all IETF standards that make use of Diffie-Hellman or Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman cryptography.

These groups and the associated test data are defined by NIST on their web site [EX80056A], but have not yet (as of this writing) been published in a formal NIST document. Publication of these groups and associated test data, as well as describing how to use Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman for key agreement in all of the protocols cited below, in one RFC, will facilitate development of interoperable implementations and support the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) validation of implementations that make use of these groups. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document describes an RFC 3933 experiment in the Working Group formation process, known as the Exploratory Group. Exploratory Groups may be created as the first step toward Working Group formation, or as an intermediate step between a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session and Working Group creation. Exploratory Groups are focused on completion of prerequisites for Working Group formation, and as a result they have a short life-time, with limited opportunities for milestone extension. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.

This document describes the collaboration and liaison relationship between the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs). This memo provides information for the Internet community.