Misplaced Pages

#786213

72-685: SCTP is standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in RFC   9260 . The SCTP reference implementation was released as part of FreeBSD version 7, and has since been widely ported to other platforms. The IETF Signaling Transport ( SIGTRAN ) working group defined the protocol (number 132) in October 2000, and the IETF Transport Area (TSVWG) working group maintains it. RFC   9260 defines

144-450: A serial number . Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document. Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated , obsolete , or obsoleted by the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process

216-525: A 65,535-byte length (including the type, flags and length fields). Although encryption was not part of the original SCTP design, SCTP was designed with features for improved security, such as 4-way handshake (compared to TCP 3-way handshake ) to protect against SYN flooding attacks, and large "cookies" for association verification and authenticity. Reliability was also a key part of the security design of SCTP. Multihoming enables an association to stay open even when some routes and interfaces are down. This

288-510: A charter that describes its focus; and what it is expected to produce, and when. It is open to all who want to participate and holds discussions on an open mailing list . Working groups hold open sessions at IETF meetings, where the onsite registration fee in 2024 was between US$ 875 (early registration) and $ 1200 per person for the week. Significant discounts are available for students and remote participants. As working groups do not make decisions at IETF meetings, with all decisions taken later on

360-526: A common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC  2119 and 8174 ), augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF) ( RFC  5234 ) as a meta-language, and simple text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand. The RFC series contains three sub-series for IETF RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP) is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI)

432-674: A cooperative agreement, No. NCR-8820945, wherein CNRI agreed to create and provide a "secretariat" for the "overall coordination, management and support of the work of the IAB, its various task forces and, particularly, the IETF". In 1992, CNRI supported the formation and early funding of the Internet Society, which took on the IETF as a fiscally sponsored project, along with the IAB, the IRTF, and

504-522: A new submission which will receive a new serial number. Standards track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents. Only the IETF, represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), can approve standards-track RFCs. If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number. The definitive list of Internet Standards

576-437: A one-byte type identifier, with 15 chunk types defined by RFC   9260 , and at least 5 more defined by additional RFCs. Eight flag bits, a two-byte length field, and the data compose the remainder of the chunk. If the chunk does not form a multiple of 4 bytes (i.e., the length is not a multiple of 4), then it is padded with zeros, which are not included in the chunk length. The two-byte length field limits each chunk to

648-426: A queue of bytes waiting to go out over the network, rather than having to keep a queue of individual separate outbound messages which must be preserved as such. The term multi-streaming refers to the capability of SCTP to transmit several independent streams of chunks in parallel, for example transmitting web page images simultaneously with the web page text. In essence, it involves bundling several connections into

720-483: A remote address, the source interface will only be decided by the routing table of the host (and not by SCTP). In asymmetric multihoming, one of the two endpoints does not support multihoming. In local multihoming and remote single homing, if the remote primary address is not reachable, the SCTP association fails even if an alternate path is possible. An SCTP packet consists of two basic sections: Each chunk starts with

792-487: A sender sends a message in one operation, and that exact message is passed to the receiving application process in one operation. In contrast, TCP is a stream-oriented protocol, transporting streams of bytes reliably and in order. However TCP does not allow the receiver to know how many times the sender application called on the TCP transport passing it groups of bytes to be sent out. At the sender, TCP simply appends more bytes to

SECTION 10

#1732801305787

864-587: A similar fashion; BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which RFC or RFCs may change over time). An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation ( RFC  1591 ). Some informational RFCs formed the FYI sub-series. An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to

936-452: A single SCTP association, operating on messages (or chunks) rather than bytes. TCP preserves byte order in the stream by including a byte sequence number with each segment . SCTP, on the other hand, assigns a sequence number or a message-id to each message sent in a stream. This allows independent ordering of messages in different streams. However, message ordering is optional in SCTP; a receiving application may choose to process messages in

1008-591: Is a sub-series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC ; 1150 (FYI 1). In 2011, RFC  6360 obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC  2026 (BCP 9). In 2011 RFC  6410 (a new part of BCP 9) reduced the standards track to two maturity levels. There are five streams of RFCs: IETF , IRTF , IAB , independent submission , and Editorial . Only

1080-421: Is also standardizing protocols for autonomic networking that enables networks to be self managing. It is a network of physical objects or things that are embedded with electronics, sensors, software and also enables objects to exchange data with operator, manufacturer and other connected devices. Several IETF working groups are developing protocols that are directly relevant to IoT . Its development provides

1152-408: Is another of the four first of what were ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center ( InterNIC ), which was managed by Elizabeth J. Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network information. From 1969 until 1998, Jon Postel served as the RFC editor . On his death in 1998, his obituary was published as RFC  2468 . Following

1224-700: Is available from these statistics. The IETF chairperson is selected by the NomCom process for a two-year renewable term. Before 1993, the IETF Chair was selected by the IAB. A list of the past and current chairs of the IETF: The IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies which provide foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution. It aims to improve the efficiency in management of networks as they grow in size and complexity. The IETF

1296-413: Is documented in RFC  2026 ( The Internet Standards Process, Revision 3 ). The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an Internet Draft without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from

1368-502: Is obsoleted by various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status. However, since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those earlier versions, such as RFC  1267 , have been designated historic. Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC

1440-736: Is of particular importance for SIGTRAN as it carries SS7 over an IP network using SCTP, and requires strong resilience during link outages to maintain telecommunication service even when enduring network anomalies. SCTP is sometimes a good fingerprinting candidate. Some operating systems ship with SCTP support enabled, and, as it is not as well known as TCP or UDP, it is sometimes overlooked in firewall and intrusion detection configurations, thus often permitting probing traffic. The SCTP reference implementation runs on FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux. The following operating systems implement SCTP: Third-party drivers: Userspace library: The following applications implement SCTP: In

1512-598: Is on implementing code that will improve standards in terms of quality and interoperability. The details of IETF operations have changed considerably as the organization has grown, but the basic mechanism remains publication of proposed specifications, development based on the proposals, review and independent testing by participants, and republication as a revised proposal, a draft proposal, or eventually as an Internet Standard. IETF standards are developed in an open, all-inclusive process in which any interested individual can participate. All IETF documents are freely available over

SECTION 20

#1732801305787

1584-452: Is on the IETF meetings page. The IETF strives to hold its meetings near where most of the IETF volunteers are located. IETF meetings are held three times a year, with one meeting each in Asia, Europe and North America. An occasional exploratory meeting is held outside of those regions in place of one of the other regions. The IETF also organizes hackathons during the IETF meetings. The focus

1656-478: Is overseen by an area director (AD), with most areas having two ADs. The ADs are responsible for appointing working group chairs. The area directors, together with the IETF Chair, form the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is responsible for the overall operation of the IETF. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversees the IETF's external relationships. The IAB provides long-range technical direction for Internet development. The IAB also manages

1728-561: Is responsible for day-to-day management of the IETF. It receives appeals of the decisions of the working groups, and the IESG makes the decision to progress documents in the standards track . The chair of the IESG is the area director of the general area, who also serves as the overall IETF chair. Members of the IESG include the two directors, sometimes three, of each of the following areas: Liaison and ex officio members include: The Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures (GADS) Task Force

1800-562: Is submitted as plain ASCII text and is published in that form, but may also be available in other formats . For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata, status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: rfc:5000. The official International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of

1872-492: Is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list. When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD n , may be RFCs x and y at a given time, but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC z instead. For example, in 2007 RFC  3700

1944-556: The Diameter protocol and Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool). TCP has provided the primary means to transfer data reliably across the Internet. However, TCP has imposed limitations on several applications. From RFC   4960 : Adoption has been slowed by lack of awareness, lack of implementations (particularly in Microsoft Windows), lack of application support and lack of network support. SCTP has seen adoption in

2016-523: The Internet , most prominently the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). An RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts, information, or, occasionally, engineering humor. The IETF adopts some of

2088-692: The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside sources. A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task into several roles, including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in 2012. The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style. In January 2010, the RFC Editor function

2160-553: The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), with which the IETF has a number of cross-group relations. A nominating committee (NomCom) of ten randomly chosen volunteers who participate regularly at meetings, a non-voting chair and 4-5 liaisons, is vested with the power to appoint, reappoint, and remove members of the IESG, IAB, IETF Trust and the IETF LLC. To date, no one has been removed by a NomCom, although several people have resigned their positions, requiring replacements. In 1993

2232-410: The mobile telephony space as the transport protocol for several core network interfaces . SCTP provides redundant paths to increase reliability. Each SCTP end point needs to check reachability of the primary and redundant addresses of the remote end point using a heartbeat . Each SCTP end point needs to acknowledge the heartbeats it receives from the remote end point. When SCTP sends a message to

Stream Control Transmission Protocol - Misplaced Pages Continue

2304-591: The IETF changed from an activity supported by the US federal government to an independent, international activity associated with the Internet Society , a US-based 501(c)(3) organization . In 2018 the Internet Society created a subsidiary, the IETF Administration LLC, to be the corporate, legal and financial home for the IETF. IETF activities are funded by meeting fees, meeting sponsors and by

2376-627: The IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. The IAB publishes informational documents relating to policy or architecture. The IRTF publishes the results of research, either as informational documents or as experiments. Independent submissions are published at the discretion of the Independent Submissions Editor. Non-IETF documents are reviewed by the IESG for conflicts with IETF work. IRTF and independent  RFCs generally contain relevant information or experiments for

2448-568: The IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups , which first publish an Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs. The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies. Most RFCs use

2520-620: The ISOC's board of directors. In 2018, ISOC established The IETF Administration LLC, a separate LLC to handle the administration of the IETF. In 2019, the LLC issued a call for proposals to provide secretariat services to the IETF. The first IETF meeting was attended by 21 US federal government-funded researchers on 16 January 1986. It was a continuation of the work of the earlier GADS Task Force. Representatives from non-governmental entities (such as gateway vendors ) were invited to attend starting with

2592-644: The Internet Society via its organizational membership and the proceeds of the Public Interest Registry . In December 2005, the IETF Trust was established to manage the copyrighted materials produced by the IETF. The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is a body composed of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chair and area directors. It provides the final technical review of Internet standards and

2664-481: The Internet Standards process, the Internet Standards or their technical content". In 1998, CNRI established Foretec Seminars, Inc. (Foretec), a for-profit subsidiary to take over providing secretariat services to the IETF. Foretec provided these services until at least 2004. By 2013, Foretec was dissolved. In 2003, IETF's RFC  3677 described IETFs role in appointing three board members to

2736-588: The Internet and can be reproduced at will. Multiple, working, useful, interoperable implementations are the chief requirement before an IETF proposed specification can become a standard. Most specifications are focused on single protocols rather than tightly interlocked systems. This has allowed the protocols to be used in many different systems, and its standards are routinely re-used by bodies which create full-fledged architectures (e.g. 3GPP IMS ). Because it relies on volunteers and uses "rough consensus and running code" as its touchstone, results can be slow whenever

2808-577: The Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work. compare RFC  4846 , 5742 and 5744 . The Editorial Stream is used to effect editorial policy changes across the RFC series (see RFC  9280 ). The official source for RFCs on the World Wide Web is the RFC Datatracker. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a URL of the form https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5000, shown for RFC  5000 . Every RFC

2880-436: The RFC Editor. A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well. The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only informational , but which do not affect over

2952-826: The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). It also established a new Editorial Stream for the RFC Series and concluded the RSOC. The role of the RSE was changed to the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). In September 2022, Alexis Rossi was appointed to that position. Requests for Comments were originally produced in non- reflowable text format. In August 2019, the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes. The RFC Editor assigns each RFC

Stream Control Transmission Protocol - Misplaced Pages Continue

3024-451: The RFC series is 2070-1721. Not all RFCs are standards. Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: Informational , Experimental , Best Current Practice , Standards Track , or Historic . Once submitted, accepted, and published, an RFC cannot be changed. Errata may be submitted, which are published separately. More significant changes require

3096-652: The RFC series to the Network Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project. Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of what were Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET. The Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at Stanford Research Institute , directed by Douglas Engelbart ,

3168-459: The ability of internet applications to send data over the Internet. There are some well-established transport protocols such as TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram Protocol) which are continuously getting extended and refined to meet the needs of the global Internet. RFC (identifier) A Request for Comments ( RFC ) is a publication in a series from the principal technical development and standards-setting bodies for

3240-484: The absence of native SCTP support in operating systems, it is possible to tunnel SCTP over UDP, as well as to map TCP API calls to SCTP calls so existing applications can use SCTP without modification. Internet Engineering Task Force Early research and development: Merging the networks and creating the Internet: Commercialization, privatization, broader access leads to

3312-531: The chunks into SCTP packets. The SCTP packet, which is submitted to the Internet Protocol , consists of a packet header, SCTP control chunks (when necessary), followed by SCTP data chunks (when available). SCTP may be characterized as message-oriented, meaning it transports a sequence of messages (each being a group of bytes), rather than transporting an unbroken stream of bytes as in TCP. As in UDP, in SCTP

3384-530: The documents "shape the Internet's inner workings and have played a significant role in its success," but are not widely known outside the community. Outside of the Internet community, other documents also called requests for comments have been published, as in U.S. Federal government work, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of

3456-470: The event a deficit occurs, CNRI has agreed to contribute up to USD$ 102,000 to offset it." In 1993, Cerf continued to support the formation of ISOC while working for CNRI, and the role of ISOC in "the official procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards" was codified in the IETF's RFC   1602 . In 1995, IETF's RFC  2031 describes ISOC's role in the IETF as being purely administrative, and ISOC as having "no influence whatsoever on

3528-590: The expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the University of Southern California (USC) Information Sciences Institute (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB. Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005. Bob Braden took over

3600-404: The fourth IETF meeting in October 1986. Since that time all IETF meetings have been open to the public. Initially, the IETF met quarterly, but from 1991, it has been meeting three times a year. The initial meetings were very small, with fewer than 35 people in attendance at each of the first five meetings. The maximum attendance during the first 13 meetings was only 120 attendees. This occurred at

3672-424: The modern Internet: Examples of Internet services: The Internet Engineering Task Force ( IETF ) is a standards organization for the Internet and is responsible for the technical standards that make up the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP). It has no formal membership roster or requirements and all its participants are volunteers. Their work is usually funded by employers or other sponsors. The IETF

SECTION 50

#1732801305787

3744-416: The modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion. The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC. In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via

3816-426: The newly operational ARPANET. RFC  1 , titled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969. Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early working group discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and Jeff Rulifson . In RFC  3 , which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing

3888-423: The number of volunteers is either too small to make progress, or so large as to make consensus difficult, or when volunteers lack the necessary expertise. For protocols like SMTP , which is used to transport e-mail for a user community in the many hundreds of millions, there is also considerable resistance to any change that is not fully backward compatible , except for IPv6 . Work within the IETF on ways to improve

3960-510: The order of receipt instead of in the order of sending. Features of SCTP include: The designers of SCTP originally intended it for the transport of telephony (i.e. Signaling System 7) over Internet Protocol, with the goal of duplicating some of the reliability attributes of the SS7 signaling network in IP. This IETF effort is known as SIGTRAN . In the meantime, other uses have been proposed, for example,

4032-419: The organization of annual INET meetings. Gross continued to serve as IETF chair throughout this transition. Cerf, Kahn, and Lyman Chapin announced the formation of ISOC as "a professional society to facilitate, support, and promote the evolution and growth of the Internet as a global research communications infrastructure". At the first board meeting of the Internet Society, Cerf, representing CNRI, offered, "In

4104-689: The program were included the RFC Editor Model (Version 3) as defined in RFC  9280 , published in June 2022. Generally, the new model is intended to clarify responsibilities and processes for defining and implementing policies related to the RFC series and the RFC Editor function. Changes in the new model included establishing the position of the RFC Consulting Editor, the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), and

4176-410: The proposals published as RFCs as Internet Standards . However, many RFCs are informational or experimental in nature and are not standards. The RFC system was invented by Steve Crocker in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of ARPANET . RFCs have since become official documents of Internet specifications , communications protocols , procedures, and events. According to Crocker,

4248-445: The protocol. RFC   3286 provides an introduction. SCTP applications submit data for transmission in messages (groups of bytes) to the SCTP transport layer. SCTP places messages and control information into separate chunks (data chunks and control chunks), each identified by a chunk header . The protocol can fragment a message into multiple data chunks, but each data chunk contains data from only one user message. SCTP bundles

4320-427: The recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult ( RFC  2827 : " Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing ") is BCP 38 . A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, RFC  821 ( SMTP ) itself

4392-429: The role of RFC project lead, while Joyce K. Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006. In July 2007, streams of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet Engineering Steering Group . The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents comes from

SECTION 60

#1732801305787

4464-539: The seminal ARPANET project. Today, it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and – to some extent – the global community of computer network researchers in general. The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers. Unlike

4536-525: The speed of the standards-making process is ongoing but, because the number of volunteers with opinions on it is very great, consensus on improvements has been slow to develop. The IETF cooperates with the W3C , ISO / IEC , ITU , and other standards bodies. Statistics are available that show who the top contributors by RFC publication are. While the IETF only allows for participation by individuals, and not by corporations or governments, sponsorship information

4608-487: The twelfth meeting, held during January 1989. These meetings have grown in both participation and scope a great deal since the early 1990s; it had a maximum attendance of 2810 at the December 2000 IETF held in San Diego, California . Attendance declined with industry restructuring during the early 2000s, and is currently around 1200. The locations for IETF meetings vary greatly. A list of past and future meeting locations

4680-572: The wire data . The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like BCP 9, or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some are on the standards track. The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance,

4752-490: The working group mailing list , meeting attendance is not required for contributors. Rough consensus is the primary basis for decision making. There are no formal voting procedures. Each working group is intended to complete work on its topic and then disband. In some cases, the working group will instead have its charter updated to take on new tasks as appropriate. The working groups are grouped into areas by subject matter ( see § Steering group , below ). Each area

4824-573: Was Mike Corrigan, who was then the technical program manager for the Defense Data Network (DDN). Also in 1986, after leaving DARPA, Robert E. Kahn founded the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), which began providing administrative support to the IETF. In 1987, Corrigan was succeeded as IETF chair by Phill Gross. Effective March 1, 1989, but providing support dating back to late 1988, CNRI and NSF entered into

4896-449: Was an Internet Standard—STD 1—and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC  5000 , so RFC  3700 changed to Historic , RFC  5000 became an Internet Standard, and as of May 2008 STD 1 is RFC  5000 . as of December 2013 RFC  5000 is replaced by RFC  7100 , updating RFC  2026 to no longer use STD 1. (Best Current Practices work in

4968-588: Was initially supported by the federal government of the United States but since 1993 has operated under the auspices of the Internet Society , a non-profit organization with local chapters around the world. There is no membership in the IETF. Anyone can participate by signing up to a working group mailing list, or registering for an IETF meeting. The IETF operates in a bottom-up task creation mode, largely driven by working groups. Each working group normally has appointed two co-chairs (occasionally three);

5040-493: Was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor. In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor (RSE). Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was created. In 2020, the IAB convened the RFC Editor Future Development program to discuss potential changes to the RFC Editor model. The results of

5112-399: Was often just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else for which the RFC series is used today. The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate) retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights. An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds

5184-588: Was the precursor to the IETF. Its chairman was David L. Mills of the University of Delaware . In January 1986, the Internet Activities Board (IAB; now called the Internet Architecture Board) decided to divide GADS into two entities: an Internet Architecture (INARC) Task Force chaired by Mills to pursue research goals, and the IETF to handle nearer-term engineering and technology transfer issues. The first IETF chair

#786213