Standards and Standardization in the Internet


Author: Indira Guzman - May 7,2001

Paper written for IST 618: Survey/Telecom & Information Policy by Prof. Milton Mueller
The Internet is a network of networks that allows all the Internet users to communicate and interact between them. To make effective the communication between computers all of them work under a standardized and coordinated addressing scheme. This standardized scheme is regulated and developed by consensus, where all the Internet users are able to give their opinion. These regulations have emerged from the bottom up and not the top down and are organized by many Internet bodies in the world.

Organizations involved in the scheme of standardization of the Internet

These are some of the most important Internet organizations that work for the interests of the whole Internet Community and its standards. They are self-created and self-governing.

Acronym
Name
Purpose
IETF
Internet Engineering Task Force
It is the international community of network designers, operators, vendors and researchers concerned with the evolution of evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It develops agreed technical standards, such as communications protocols.
www.ietf.org
ICANN
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
ICANN is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities. It is the assignment authority for domain names.
www.icann.org
IESG
Internet Engineering Steering Group
The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process. As part of the ISOC, it administers the process according to the rules and procedures which have been ratified by the ISOC Trustees. The IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with entry into and movement along the Internet "standards track," including final approval of specifications as Internet Standards. IESG coordinates and approves the technical standards.
http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html
ISOC
Internet Society
The ISOC is a professional membership organization of Internet experts that comments on policies and practices and oversees a number of other boards and task forces dealing with network policy issues. The ISOC provides leadership in the management of Internet related standards, educational, and policy development issues.
http://www.isoc.org
IAB
Internet Architecture Board
The IAB is a technical advisory group of the Internet Society, responsible for IESG Selection, Architectural Oversight, Standards Process Oversight and Appeal, RFC Series and IANA, External Liaison and Advice to ISOC.
http://www.iab.org
IANA
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
The IANA preserves the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good. IANA houses the many unique parameters and protocol values necessary for operation of the Internet and its future development. 
www.iana.org

The Internet Standard Process

The Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by the IAB and the IESG. It is a set of steps and activities that will give as a result the standards of protocols and procedures.
“An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the internet.” (RFC2026 S. BRADNER [1996])
 
To be adopted as a standard, a specification undergoes a period of development and several iterations of review by the Internet community and revision based upon experience. First, a specification becomes a RFC (Request for Comments) document. Not all of the RFC become Internet Standards. Then, if the RFC becomes a standard, it is adopted by appropriate body and is published to the public as a standard.
 

Why the process is complicated?

 
The process is complicated because:
  • The difficulty of creating specifications of high technical quality according to the actual technology;
  • The need to consider the interests of all the affected parties around the world;
  • The importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and
  • The difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the Internet community taking a very long time.

    • The goals of the Internet Standards Process:

  • Technical excellence
  • Prior implementation and testing
  • Clear, concise, and easily understood documentation
  • Openness and fairness; and
  • Timeliness
    •  
    The specification is published as a part of the “Request for Comments” (RFC), which are document series through an official publication channel in ASCII format.
    During the development of a specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the IETF’s “ Internet –Drafts” directory, which is replied on a number of Internet hosts.

    Categories of specifications:

    Specifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into one of two categories:

    Standards Track Maturity Levels

    Internet specifications go through the following stages of development, testing and acceptance:
     


     

    Best Current Practice (BCP)

    The BCP sub-series of the RFC is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define an ratify the community’s best current thinking on a statement of principle of on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. It is another way to make a Standard for the Internet Community.

    Emergence of ways to avoid the present Internet Standardization Scheme

    Most of the companies follow the described standard scheme. However, there are some cases where some companies do not follow this scheme and are considered important because they have the participation of thousands of Internet users. The problem is that some standard issues become corrupted by other interests, such as commercial interests of some people.

    Avoiding the Standard Domain Name Scheme

    On march 5th, 2001, New.net (www.new.net) a start-up based in Pasadena, California, began selling domain names based on suffixes or top level domains like: .kids, .sport, and .xxx, that are not sanctioned by ICANN. To make this work they use a program- which can be downloaded for free in his web site –that will add the extension “new.net” automatically to the address and will route the request to the firm’s own name system.
     
    According to this company, there are already more than 21 million of Internet users that have the program that allows them to access to New.net domain names. It was done because this company got the support of leading American ISPs (Internet Service Providers), such as Excite@Home and Earthlink giving it 16m potential users from the start. When so many people is involved in a situation like this it is harder to find a consensus because there can be millions of dollars in the middle and users interests.
    Many people are concerned about appropriate domain names. As the ABC Namebank International president Naseem Javed said, "The name must show power, it must be unique.  It must have a protective layer between so that your competitors are scared to touch you," and this could be one argument that can support to this company. As a matter of fact, there were many applications for more gTLD to be approved by the scheme.

    Analyzing the situation

    Internet Standards are created to provide a uniform scheme for all the Internet Users. However, when some companies start creating situations where they avoid this Standard Scheme there are many consequences that could be positive and negative for the users and for the Internet itself.
     
    Some effects to consider could be the following:
     
    This could be an opportunity to speed up the introduction of new domain with sufficient number of new suffixes that can be added, enhancing competition for registration services, the utility of the DNS and the number of available domain names.
     
    On the other hand, if an Internet user makes transactions based on electronic commerce in the Internet in a site that is registered outside the scheme there is no guaranty about the holder of the Domain Name. This could be an unsafe environment for business.
     
    There is no certification for these registrars and registers. Therefore, there is no support from the big organizations that work in benefit of the whole Internet Community.

    Policy recommendations

    Even though, all the standards are approved when they got a consensus, most of the Internet users do not know about this scheme where many organizations, researchers and companies are involved. All those organizations should make more publications and advertisements to publish and let people know the purposes of the entire scheme.
     
    The final decision about using or not a different program that is not “standard”, will be taken by the Internet user, but the problem is that this user should make the decision knowing and understanding the risks of avoiding the Process of Standardization and the world wide recognized scheme.
    Similarly, it is important to promote the participation of more new users. Usually, people who make comments about RFCs published by IETF are leaders in their mediums and represent the interest of the people in that medium. However, it is still not a representative number considering the regions and the number of Internet users at this time.

    Sources:

    IETF: RFC2026 S. Bradner [1996] “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3” at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
    KUBISZYN M. [2000], “New Top-Level Domain Names May Create More Legal Issues”, at http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/kubiszyn-2000-07-p1.html
    MULLER M. [1997], Internet Governance in Crisis: The Political Economy of Top-Level Domains”, at http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B5/B5_1.HTM
    MULLER M. [2000], “Technology and Institutional Innovation Internet Domain Names”, at http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B5/B5_1.HTM
    THE ECONOMIST [2001] “Internet Governance: Domain strain”, at http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=529158
    THE ECONOMIST [2000] “The Consensus machine”, at http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=335281