    Network Working Group                                    J. Klensin, Ed.
    Request for Comments: 4846                                D. Thaler, Ed.
    Category: Informational                                        July 2007

                   Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor

    Status of This Memo

       This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
       not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
       memo is unlimited.

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

    Abstract

       There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community,
       predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years,
       of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in
       the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms.
       These documents, known as "Independent Submissions", serve a number
       of important functions for the Internet community, both inside and
       outside of the community of active IETF participants.  This document
       discusses the Independent Submission model and some reasons why it is
       important.  It then describes editorial and processing norms that can
       be used for Independent Submissions as the community goes forward
       into new relationships between the IETF community and its primary
       technical publisher.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 1]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

    Table of Contents

       1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
         1.1.  Terminology Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
         1.2.  Context and Philosophical Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.  The Role of Independent Submissions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.  Document Submission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       4.  The Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         4.1.  Posting of Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         4.2.  Request for Publication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         4.3.  Initial RFC Editor Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         4.4.  Review and Evaluation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         4.5.  Additional Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         4.6.  Document Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         4.7.  Final Decision and Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
         4.8.  Final Editing and Publication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.  Formal IESG Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       6.  The Editorial Review Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       7.  Status and Availability of Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         7.1.  Posted Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         7.2.  Rejected Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         7.3.  Documents Approved for Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       8.  Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
         11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
         11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       Appendix A.  IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . 15

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 2]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

    1.  Introduction

       There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community,
       predating the IETF by many years, of use of the RFC Series to publish
       materials that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its
       review and approval mechanisms.  These documents, known as
       "Independent Submissions", serve a number of important functions for
       the Internet community, both inside and outside of the community of
       active IETF participants.  This document discusses the Independent
       Submission model and some reasons why it is important.  It then
       describes editorial and processing norms that can be used for
       Independent Submissions as the community goes forward into new
       relationships between the IETF community and its primary technical
       publisher.

       To understand the perspective of this document, it is important to
       remember that the RFC Editor function predates the creation of the
       IETF.  As of the time of this writing, the RFC Series goes back 38
       years [RFC2555], while the IETF is celebrating its 21st anniversary.
       All of the documents that were published before the IETF was created,
       and for some years thereafter, would be considered Independent
       Submissions today.  As the IETF evolved, the Internet Architecture
       Board (IAB) and then the IETF itself chose to publish IETF documents
       as RFCs while fully understanding that the RFC Editor function was an
       independent publication mechanism.  Other decisions were possible:
       e.g., the IETF could have decided to create its own publication
       series.  It was felt that there was considerable value in continuing
       to publish the IETF work in the same series as the one used to
       publish the basic protocols for the Internet.

    1.1.  Terminology Note

       This document describes what have historically been referred to as
       "Independent Submissions".  That term is distinguished from those
       IETF and IAB community documents that originate from formal groups --
       the IAB, IRTF, and IETF Working Groups -- and from submissions
       submitted to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for
       Standards-Track, Informational, or Experimental processing.
       Documents produced by individuals, rather than IETF WGs or others
       IETF-affiliated groups, but submitted for publication via the IESG
       under Area Director sponsorship, are known as "individual
       submissions".

       For convenience and obvious historical reasons, the editor and
       publisher of documents that are not processed through the IETF is
       known below as the "RFC Editor".  The RFC Editor will typically be an
       organization of one or more senior people and associated editorial
       staff, and the term is used collectively below.  That term is not

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 3]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       intended to predict the future, either in terms of who does the job
       or what they, or the document series, are called.

    1.2.  Context and Philosophical Assumptions

       This document complements the discussion and guidelines in [RFC4714],
       which focuses on Standards-Track documents.  It takes a somewhat
       stronger view than the discussions that led to that document,
       starting from the belief that Independent Submissions are most
       valuable if they are, in fact, independent of the IETF process.  From
       the perspective of the IETF, Independent Submissions are especially
       important as checks on the IETF processes even though such checks are
       not the only, or even a common, reason for them.  That role is
       compromised if IETF-related entities are able to block or deprecate
       such documents to a degree beyond that needed to avoid difficulties
       with the standards process.

    2.  The Role of Independent Submissions

       When the RFC Series was fairly new, RFCs were used to publish general
       papers on networking as well as the types of documents we would
       describe as standards today.  Those roles also developed as part of
       the early design and development of the ARPANET, long before anyone
       dreamt of the IETF and when the distinction between, e.g., Standards
       and Informational documents was less precisely drawn.  In more recent
       years, Independent Submissions have become important for multiple
       reasons, some of them relatively new.  They include:

       o  Discussion of Internet-related technologies that are not part of
          the IETF agenda.

       o  Introduction of important new ideas as a bridge publication venue
          between academia and IETF engineering.

       o  Informational discussions of technologies, options, or experience
          with protocols.

       o  Informational publication of vendor-specific protocols.

       o  Critiques and discussions of alternatives to IETF Standards-Track
          protocols.  The potential for such critiques provides an important
          check on the IETF's standards processes and should be seen in that
          light.

       o  Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
          While many documents of this type are still published in the IETF
          document stream (see [RFC4844], Section 5.1.1) as Informational or

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 4]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

          Experimental RFCs, the Independent Submission path has
          traditionally been open to them as well.  However, because of
          their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process and WG
          activities and the consequent sensitivity to exact statements of
          relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that such
          documents should normally be published via the IETF document
          stream.  In any event, these documents are published for the
          historical record.

       o  Satirical materials.

       o  Meeting notes and reports (RFC 21 [RFC0021] is the earliest; RFC
          1109 [RFC1109] is probably the most important).

       o  Editorials (the best example is IEN 137 [IEN137], not an RFC).

       o  Eulogies (RFC 2441 [RFC2441]).

       o  Technical contributions (e.g., RFC 1810 [RFC1810]).

       o  Historically, RFC Editor and, at least prior to the handoff
          between the Informational Sciences Institute (ISI) and the
          Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and
          the June 2000 MOU [RFC2860], Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
          (IANA) Policy Statements (e.g., RFC 2223 [RFC2223] and RFC 1591
          [RFC1591]).

       It should be clear from the list above that, to be effective, the
       review and approval process for Independent Submissions should be
       largely independent of the IETF.  As an important principle that has
       been applied historically, the RFC Editor seeks advice from the IESG
       about possible relationships and conflicts with IETF work.  Any
       submission that constitutes an alternative to, or is in conflict
       with, an IETF Standard or proposal for Standards-Track adoption must
       clearly indicate that relationship.  The IESG may identify such
       conflicts as part of its review.

       The specific procedures to be followed in review are described in
       Section 4 and Section 5.

    3.  Document Submission

       Independent Submissions are submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
       They must first be posted as Internet-Drafts (I-Ds), so the
       submission is typically simply a note requesting that the RFC Editor
       consider a particular Internet-Draft for publication.  The process is
       described in [RFC2223].  Further information can be found in the
       working draft of an update of that document [RFC2223BIS].

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 5]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       Any document that meets the requirements of this specification, of
       [RFC2223] and its successors, and of any intellectual property or
       other conditions that may be established from time to time, may be
       submitted to the RFC Editor for consideration as an Independent
       Submission.  However, the RFC Editor prefers that documents created
       through IETF processes (e.g., working group output) be considered by
       the IESG and submitted using this path only if a working group or the
       IESG declines to publish it.  In the latter cases, the review process
       will be more efficient if the authors provide a history of
       consideration and reviews of the document at the time of submission.

    4.  The Review Process

       In general, the steps in the review process are identified in the
       subsections below.  Any of them may be iterated and, at the
       discretion of the RFC Editor, steps after the first may be taken out
       of order.  In addition, the IESG review, as discussed in Section 5,
       must take place before a final decision is made on whether to publish
       the document.

    4.1.  Posting of Draft

       The author(s) or editor(s) of a document post it as an Internet-
       Draft.

    4.2.  Request for Publication

       After the normal opportunity for community review and feedback
       provided by the submission of the I-D and the I-D repository
       announcement thereof, the author or editor sends a request for
       consideration for publication to the RFC Editor at
       rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  That request should note any community
       discussion or reviews of the document that have occurred before
       submission, as well as the desired document category (Informational
       or Experimental, as discussed in RFC 2026 [RFC2026], Section 4.2).

       If the document requires any IANA allocations, authors should take
       care to check the assignment policy for the relevant namespace, since
       some assignment policies (e.g., "IETF Consensus") cannot be used by
       Independent Submissions.  See RFC 2434 [RFC2434] for more
       information.

    4.3.  Initial RFC Editor Review

       RFC Editor staff performs an initial check on the document to
       determine whether there are obvious issues or problems and to decide
       on the sequencing of other steps.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 6]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       At any time during the process, the RFC Editor may make general
       and/or specific suggestions to the author on how to improve the
       editorial quality of the document and note any specific violations of
       the rules.  The author will be expected to make the suggested
       updates, submit a new version, and inform the RFC Editor.  This may
       be repeated as often as necessary to obtain an acceptable editorial
       quality.

    4.4.  Review and Evaluation

       The RFC Editor arranges for one or more reviews of the document.
       This may include Editorial Board (see Section 6) reviews or reviews
       by others.  Unsolicited reviews from parties independent of the
       author are welcome at any time.

       At minimum, the author of every document shall receive a written
       summary of the review(s).  Reviewer anonymity is discussed in
       Section 7.  The RFC Editor may also share reviews with the Editorial
       Board.

       An author rebuttal to some aspect of a review, followed by a healthy
       technical dialog among the author and the reviewer(s), is fully
       appropriate.  Consensus followed by document revision is the desired
       outcome.

       The RFC Editor is expected to consider all competent reviews
       carefully, and in the absence of some unusual circumstance, a
       preponderance of favorable reviews should lead to publication.

    4.5.  Additional Reviews

       If the author is dissatisfied with one or more review(s), the author
       may request that the RFC Editor solicit additional reviews.  In
       exceptional circumstances, the author may request that the IAB review
       the document.  Such requests to the IAB, and any reviews the IAB
       chooses to perform, will occur according to procedures of the IAB's
       choosing.  The IAB is not required to initiate a review or comply
       with a request for one: a request to the IAB for a review is not an
       appeal process.

    4.6.  Document Rejection

       If any stage of the review process just described leads to the
       conclusion that the document is not publishable, the RFC Editor may
       reject the document.  Such rejection would normally be based on the
       conclusion that the submission does not meet the technical or
       editorial standards of the RFC Series or is not relevant to the areas
       that the series covers.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 7]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       If a document is rejected by the RFC Editor, the author may request
       an additional review from the IAB, as described below, but the IAB is
       not obligated to perform that review, nor is the RFC Editor obligated
       to publish it, even with a favorable IAB review.

    4.7.  Final Decision and Notification

       In all cases, the ultimate decision to publish or not publish, and
       with what text, rests with the RFC Editor.

       The RFC Editor will communicate the final decision to the author and
       the Editorial Board.  For a rejection, there will be a summary of the
       reason(s) for the action.

       Information about any IESG-requested publication delay or request to
       not publish a document will be posted to the RFC Editor Web site to
       supplement document status information.

    4.8.  Final Editing and Publication

       Once a document is approved for publication, it is handled in a
       fashion similar to other RFCs, with principles about priorities
       worked out with the IAB as appropriate.

    5.  Formal IESG Review

       At an appropriate time in the review process, normally after the RFC
       Editor has made a tentative decision to publish, the document is
       forwarded to the IESG for evaluation with a relatively short timeout.
       If the nature of the document persuades the RFC Editor or the IESG
       that the interests of the community or efficiency in the publication
       process would be better served by a different schedule, then that
       schedule should be followed.  For example, if it appears to the RFC
       Editor that it is likely that the IESG will wish to take the document
       over and assign it to a working group, it may be better to ask for
       the IESG review prior to incurring the delays associated with other
       reviews or significant editorial work.

       The IESG evaluation is not a technical one.  Instead, it covers the
       issues listed in RFC 3932 [RFC3932] or its successors, presumably
       from the perspective outlined above in Section 1.2.  That is, the
       evaluation should focus exclusively on conflicts or confusion with
       IETF process and attempts to subvert ("end run") working group
       activities.

       At the time the document is forwarded to the IESG, the RFC Editor
       posts an indication on its Web site that the document is under IESG
       review and that comments on conflicts can be sent to the IESG with

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 8]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       copies to the RFC Editor.  Additional mechanisms may be developed
       from time to time to inform a community that a document is entering
       formal prepublication review.  Comments not directly related to IETF
       procedures or conflicts may be sent directly to the author(s) and RFC
       Editor.

       In addition to the IESG review for conflict with IETF work,
       individuals in the IESG or in the broader IETF community are free to
       review a draft and, if they have comments of any kind --including the
       extreme case of believing that the proposal is damaging to the
       Internet as a whole-- these comments should be directed to the
       author(s) and the RFC Editor.

       If the IESG, after completing its review, identifies issues, it may
       recommend explanatory or qualifying text for the RFC Editor to
       include in the document if it is published.

       If the IESG concludes that publication of the document should be
       delayed for a reasonable period of time because its untimely
       publication could cause confusion or other harm with proposals under
       consideration for standardization, the RFC Editor will grant that
       request.  The current agreement between the RFC Editor and the IESG
       on requested delays is expected to continue.  That agreement permits
       the IESG to ask for a delay of up to six months and, if necessary, to
       renew that request twice, for a total possible delay of 18 months.

       If the IESG concludes that the document should not be published as an
       RFC, it will request that the RFC Editor not publish and provide
       appropriate justification for that request.  The RFC Editor will
       consider the request to not publish the document.

       The RFC Editor or the author may request that the IAB review the
       IESG's request to delay or not publish the document and request that
       the IAB provide an additional opinion.  Such a request will be made
       public via the RFC Editor Web site.  As with the IESG review itself,
       the IAB's opinion, if any, will be advisory.  And, as with author
       requests for an IAB technical review (see Section 4.5), the IAB is
       not obligated to perform this type of review and may decline the
       request.

    6.  The Editorial Review Board

       The RFC Editor appoints and maintains the Editorial Review Board,
       which, much like the editorial boards of professional journals and
       publishers, provides the RFC Editor with both advice and reviews of
       particular proposed publications and general and strategic policy
       advice.  The membership list of the Editorial Review Board is public
       and can be found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/edboard.html.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                      [Page 9]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       Editorial Board members serve at the pleasure of the RFC Editor.
       From time to time, the RFC Editor will solicit suggestions for new
       appointees from the IAB and other sources and will seek IAB comments
       on those to be appointed.  The RFC Editor will also solicit IAB
       comments on the effectiveness of the review process and the quality
       of documents being published and criteria applied.  However, to
       ensure the independence of the Independent Submission process, the
       final decision to appoint (or not appoint) Editorial Board members
       rests with the RFC Editor.

    7.  Status and Availability of Reviews

       The RFC Editor will conduct the reviews discussed above with the
       intent of balancing fairness to authors, transparency of the review
       process to the general community, protection of reviewers from
       possible retaliation or undue pressure, and the interest of the
       community in having any significant dissents from published documents
       available to the community with the same degree of scrutiny that the
       original documents received.  To this end, reviews and information
       about reviewers will be made public under the following
       circumstances.  In special cases in which other considerations apply,
       the RFC Editor may adopt special provisions after reviewing the
       circumstances and proposed action with the IAB.

       Any reviewer participating in the process outlined in this document
       does so on the condition of giving consent to handling of the reviews
       as outlined in this section.  In special cases, individual
       arrangements may be worked out in advance with the RFC Editor.

       As described in Section 4.4, all reviews will be shared with the
       document authors (with possible editing to remove any extreme
       language).  The names of the reviewers will normally accompany these
       reviews, but reviewers will be granted anonymity upon request to the
       RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor will in any case forward any author
       rebuttal messages to the reviewer.

       Nothing in this section or the subsections below precludes private
       communications between reviewers, the Editorial Board, and the RFC
       Editor; such communications will remain confidential.

    7.1.  Posted Reviews

       Once a final accept or reject decision has been made on a document,
       the RFC Editor may choose to post the full set of reviews (and author
       rebuttals, if any) associated with a document, if doing so would be
       in the best interest of the community.  The author may request
       earlier posting of reviews and rebuttals, to inspire additional
       unsolicited reviews, for example.  The names of the reviewers will

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 10]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       accompany their reviews, except for a reviewer who requested
       anonymity.

       The author will be notified in advance of the intent to post the
       final reviews.  The author may then request that the document be
       withdrawn and the reviews kept private.  However, such an author
       request must be timely, generally within 14 days of the notification
       of intent to post.

    7.2.  Rejected Documents

       If the RFC Editor rejects a document, the author has the following
       options for recourse.

       o  Request one or more additional reviews (Section 4.5) followed by a
          reconsideration.

       o  Request an IAB review (Section 4.5, Section 4.6) followed by a
          reconsideration.

       o  Request that the reviews be published on the RFC Editor Web site.

    7.3.  Documents Approved for Publication

       In considering whether to make review materials public for documents
       accepted for publication, the RFC Editor is expected to note that the
       best way to comment on or dissent from an RFC is generally another
       RFC; that reviews critical of a document are not themselves reviewed;
       that the review and refutation process is necessarily fragmentary;
       and that a reviewer who feels strongly about a subject about which a
       review has already been written often would not need to do
       significant additional work to produce an RFC-format document from
       that review.

    8.  Intellectual Property Rights

       The following material was extracted from the relevant sections of
       BCP 78 [RFC3978] [RFC4748] in order to get all Independent Submission
       information for technical publications produced under the auspices of
       the IETF, the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) or the IETF
       Trust, or the Internet Society (ISOC) into a single place and to
       initialize the process of separating discussions of Independent
       Submissions from those about Standards-Track or other IETF documents.
       Note that the text that follows uses the term "RFC Editor
       Contribution" to describe the same type of document referred to as an
       "Independent Submission" elsewhere in this document.  The RFC Editor

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 11]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

       may change these provisions from time to time after obtaining the
       advice and consent of the IETF Trust in the RFC Editor's capacity as
       the formal publisher of RFCs.

       By submission of an RFC Editor Contribution, each person actually
       submitting the RFC Editor Contribution, and each named co-
       Contributor, is deemed to agree to the following terms and
       conditions, and to grant the following rights, on his or her own
       behalf and on behalf of the organization the Contributor represents
       or is sponsored by (if any) when submitting the RFC Editor
       Contribution.

       a.  For Internet-Drafts that are expected to be submitted as RFC
           Editor Contributions: To the extent that an RFC Editor
           Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and
           other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-
           Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is
           sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive,
           royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and
           the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the RFC Editor
           Contribution for at least the life of the Internet-Draft, to
           copy, publish, display, and distribute the RFC Editor
           Contribution as an Internet-Draft.

       b.  For an RFC Editor Contribution submitted for publication as an
           RFC, and to the extent described above, the Contributor, each
           named co-Contributor, and the organizations represented above
           grant the same license to those organizations and to the
           community as a whole to copy, publish, display, and distribute
           the RFC Editor Contribution irrevocably and in perpetuity and,
           also irrevocably and in perpetuity, grant the rights listed below
           to those organizations and entities and to the community:

           A.  to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
               RFC into languages other than English,

           B.  unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in an
               RFC Editor Contribution, to prepare derivative works (other
               than translations) that are based on or incorporate all or
               part of the RFC Editor Contribution, or comment upon it.  The
               license to such derivative works shall not grant the IETF
               Trust, the IETF, or other party preparing a derivative work
               any more rights than the license to the original RFC Editor
               Contribution, and

           C.  to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
               that are included in the RFC Editor Contribution solely in
               connection with the reproduction, distribution, or

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 12]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

               publication of the RFC Editor Contribution and derivative
               works thereof as permitted by this paragraph.  Any entity
               reproducing RFC Editor Contributions will, as a condition of
               permission of such reproduction, preserve trademark and
               service mark identifiers used by the Contributor of the RFC
               Editor Contribution, including (TM) and (R) where
               appropriate.

           D.  The Contributor grants the IETF Trust and the IETF,
               permission to reference the name(s) and address(es) of the
               Contributor(s) and of the organization(s) s/he represents or
               is sponsored by (if any).

    9.  Security Considerations

       This document specifies an RFC Editor (and, indirectly, IETF)
       administrative and publication procedure.  It has no specific
       security implications.

    10.  Acknowledgments

       Special thanks are due to Bob Hinden and Craig Partridge, who made
       several suggestions for improved text in earlier versions of this
       document, and to Stewart Bryant, Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter, Vint
       Cerf, Leslie Daigle, and Olaf Kolkman, who made a number of useful
       suggestions about the organization and content of subsequent
       versions.  We also express our appreciation to the IETF and Scott
       Bradner, Editor, for the material extracted from BCP 78 [RFC3978] and
       used in Section 8.

    11.  References

    11.1.  Normative References

       [RFC2026]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
                     Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

       [RFC2223]     Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC
                     Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997.

       [RFC3932]     Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
                     Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.

       [RFC3978]     Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
                     RFC 3978, March 2005.

       [RFC4748]     Bradner, S., "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF
                     Trust", BCP 78, RFC 4748, October 2006.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 13]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

    11.2.  Informative References

       [IEN137]      Cohen, D., "On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace",
                     IEN 137, April 1980,
                     <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/ien/ien137.txt>.

       [RFC0021]     Cerf, V., "Network meeting", RFC 21, October 1969.

       [RFC1109]     Cerf, V., "Report of the second Ad Hoc Network
                     Management Review Group", RFC 1109, August 1989.

       [RFC1591]     Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
                     Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.

       [RFC1810]     Touch, J., "Report on MD5 Performance", RFC 1810,
                     June 1995.

       [RFC2223BIS]  Reynolds, J., Ed. and R. Braden, Ed., "Instructions to
                     Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", Work in Progress,
                     August 2004.

       [RFC2434]     Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
                     an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
                     RFC 2434, October 1998.

       [RFC2441]     Cohen, D., "Working with Jon Tribute delivered at UCLA,
                     October 30, 1998", RFC 2441, November 1998.

       [RFC2555]     Braden, R., Reynolds, J., Crocker, S., Cerf, V.,
                     Feinler, J., and C. Anderson, "30 Years of RFCs",
                     RFC 2555, April 1999.

       [RFC2860]     Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum
                     of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
                     Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
                     June 2000.

       [RFC4714]     Mankin, A. and S. Hayes, "Requirements for IETF
                     Technical Publication Service", RFC 4714, October 2006.

       [RFC4844]     Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "The RFC Series and RFC
                     Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 14]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

    Appendix A.  IAB Members at the Time of Approval

       Bernard Aboba
       Loa Andersson
       Brian Carpenter
       Leslie Daigle
       Elwyn Davies
       Kevin Fall
       Olaf Kolkman
       Kurtis Lindqvist
       David Meyer
       David Oran
       Eric Rescorla
       Dave Thaler
       Lixia Zhang

    Authors' Addresses

       John C Klensin (editor)
       1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
       Cambridge, MA  02140
       USA

       Phone: +1 617 491 5735
       EMail: john-ietf@jck.com

       Dave Thaler (editor)
       One Microsoft Way
       Redmond, WA  98052
       USA

       Phone: +1 425 703 8835
       EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 15]

    RFC 4846                Independent Submissions                July 2007

    Full Copyright Statement

       Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

       This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
       contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
       retain all their rights.

       This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
       "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
       OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
       THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
       OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
       THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
       WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    Intellectual Property

       The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
       Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
       pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
       this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
       might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
       made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
       on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
       found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

       Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
       assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
       attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
       such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
       specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
       http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

       The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
       copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
       rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
       this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
       ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

    Acknowledgement

       Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
       Internet Society.

    Klensin & Thaler             Informational                     [Page 16]