# Web4 Standards Submission Process

## Overview

This document outlines the process for submitting the Web4 specification to international standards bodies. The primary targets are IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) for protocol specifications and ISO (International Organization for Standardization) for the broader framework.

## 1. IETF Submission Process

### 1.1 Initial Steps

#### Find a Champion/Sponsor
- Identify an IETF participant willing to champion the draft
- Engage with relevant working groups (likely: HTTPBIS, OAUTH, JOSE/COSE)
- Consider forming a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session at an IETF meeting

#### Prepare Internet-Draft
```
Filename format: draft-palatov-web4-core-00.txt
Sections required:
- Abstract (200 words max)
- Status of This Memo
- Copyright Notice
- Introduction
- Terminology
- Protocol Specification
- Security Considerations
- IANA Considerations
- References (Normative and Informative)
```

### 1.2 Submission Requirements

#### Document Formatting
- Plain ASCII text or XML (xml2rfc format)
- Maximum line length: 72 characters
- Page breaks every 58 lines
- Use IETF tools: https://tools.ietf.org/

#### Required Sections
1. **Abstract**: Concise summary of Web4
2. **Introduction**: Problem statement and solution overview
3. **Terminology**: RFC 2119 keywords (MUST, SHOULD, MAY)
4. **Architecture**: LCTs, MRH, Trust, MCP, SAL, AGY, ACP, ATP, Dictionaries
5. **Protocol Details**: Message formats, state machines, algorithms
6. **Security Considerations**: Threat model, mitigations
7. **Privacy Considerations**: Data protection, consent
8. **IANA Considerations**: Registries needed
9. **References**: RFCs and external specifications

### 1.3 Submission Process

1. **Create Datatracker Account**: https://datatracker.ietf.org/
2. **Submit Initial Draft**: Upload to datatracker
3. **Announce on Mailing Lists**: 
   - ietf-announce@ietf.org
   - Relevant WG lists
4. **Present at IETF Meeting**: Virtual or in-person
5. **Iterate Based on Feedback**: -00 → -01 → -02 versions
6. **WG Adoption**: Get working group to adopt draft
7. **WG Last Call**: Final review within WG
8. **IETF Last Call**: Organization-wide review
9. **IESG Review**: Internet Engineering Steering Group approval
10. **RFC Publication**: Becomes official standard

### 1.4 Timeline
- Initial submission to WG adoption: 3-6 months
- WG process: 12-24 months
- IESG review to RFC: 6-12 months
- **Total: 2-3.5 years typical**

## 2. ISO Submission Process

### 2.1 Pathway Options

#### Option A: Through National Body
- Contact national standards organization (ANSI for USA)
- Submit as New Work Item Proposal (NWIP)
- Requires support from 5 participating countries

#### Option B: Through Liaison Organization
- W3C has Category A liaison with ISO/IEC JTC 1
- IETF has liaison relationships
- Can fast-track through PAS (Publicly Available Specification)

### 2.2 Target Committees

- **ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38**: Cloud Computing and Distributed Platforms
- **ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27**: Information Security
- **ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42**: Artificial Intelligence
- **ISO/TC 307**: Blockchain and DLT

### 2.3 Document Requirements

#### New Work Item Proposal (NWIP)
- Title and scope
- Purpose and justification
- Relevant documents
- Target dates
- Proposer and supporters

#### Draft International Standard (DIS)
- Follow ISO/IEC Directives Part 2
- Use ISO template
- Include normative and informative sections
- Provide use cases and examples

### 2.4 ISO Process Stages

1. **Proposal Stage (NP)**: 3 months
2. **Preparatory Stage (WD)**: 6-12 months
3. **Committee Stage (CD)**: 6-12 months
4. **Enquiry Stage (DIS)**: 5 months
5. **Approval Stage (FDIS)**: 2 months
6. **Publication Stage**: 2 months
- **Total: 2-3 years typical**

## 3. W3C Submission Process

### 3.1 Community Group

1. **Create W3C Community Group**: "Web4 Trust-Native Architecture"
2. **Develop Community Group Report**: Based on current spec
3. **Build Implementation Experience**: Reference implementations
4. **Gather Support**: Multiple implementers needed

### 3.2 Working Group

1. **Charter Proposal**: Define scope and deliverables
2. **AC Review**: Advisory Committee review
3. **Working Group Formation**: If approved
4. **Recommendation Track**:
   - First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
   - Working Draft (WD) iterations
   - Candidate Recommendation (CR)
   - Proposed Recommendation (PR)
   - W3C Recommendation (REC)

### 3.3 Timeline
- Community Group: 6-12 months
- Charter and WG formation: 3-6 months
- Recommendation track: 18-24 months
- **Total: 2.5-3.5 years**

## 4. Preparation Checklist

### Technical Readiness
- [x] Complete specification
- [x] Reference implementation
- [x] Test suite and vectors
- [x] Security analysis
- [ ] Interoperability testing (2+ implementations)
- [ ] Performance benchmarks
- [ ] Deployment guide

### Documentation
- [x] Technical specification
- [x] Executive summary
- [ ] Internet-Draft format
- [ ] ISO document format
- [ ] IPR disclosures
- [ ] Patent declarations

### Community
- [ ] Industry support letters (5+ organizations)
- [ ] Implementation commitments
- [ ] Use case documentation
- [ ] Economic impact analysis
- [ ] Academic papers/reviews

### Legal
- [ ] IPR policy compliance
- [ ] Patent search
- [ ] Trademark considerations
- [ ] License compatibility (AGPL)

## 5. Strategic Recommendations

### 5.1 Parallel Track Approach

Submit simultaneously to:
1. **IETF**: For protocol specifications (LCT, MCP, handshake)
2. **ISO**: For architecture and framework
3. **W3C**: For web-specific bindings and APIs

### 5.2 Modular Submission

Break into manageable chunks:
1. **Core**: LCTs and MRH
2. **Trust**: T3/V3 tensors and relationships
3. **Protocols**: MCP and handshake
4. **Governance**: SAL framework
5. **Economic**: ATP/ADP cycle

### 5.3 Building Support

#### Industry Engagement
- Form Web4 Alliance/Consortium
- Recruit major tech companies
- Demonstrate business value
- Create certification program

#### Academic Validation
- Publish in peer-reviewed journals
- Present at conferences
- Formal security proofs
- Economic modeling

#### Open Source Community
- Multiple implementations
- Active GitHub presence
- Regular releases
- Developer documentation

## 6. Next Immediate Steps

### Month 1-3: Preparation
1. Format specification as Internet-Draft
2. Create ISO NWIP document
3. Establish W3C Community Group
4. Identify champions in each SDO
5. Build implementation matrix

### Month 4-6: Initial Submission
1. Submit Internet-Draft -00
2. Present at IETF meeting
3. Submit ISO NWIP through national body
4. Launch W3C CG activities
5. Gather support letters

### Month 7-12: Iteration
1. Respond to feedback
2. Update specifications
3. Build additional implementations
4. Demonstrate interoperability
5. Refine based on deployment experience

## 7. Resources and Contacts

### IETF Resources
- Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/
- Tools: https://tools.ietf.org/
- Meeting calendar: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/
- New participants: https://www.ietf.org/newcomers/

### ISO Resources
- ISO portal: https://www.iso.org/
- Standards development: https://www.iso.org/developing-standards.html
- JTC 1: https://www.iso.org/isoiec-jtc-1.html

### W3C Resources
- Community Groups: https://www.w3.org/community/
- Process document: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
- Submission guide: https://www.w3.org/Submission/

### National Bodies
- ANSI (USA): https://www.ansi.org/
- BSI (UK): https://www.bsigroup.com/
- DIN (Germany): https://www.din.de/
- AFNOR (France): https://www.afnor.org/
- JISC (Japan): https://www.jisc.go.jp/

## 8. Budget Considerations

### Estimated Costs
- IETF participation: $5-10K/year (meetings, travel)
- ISO participation: $10-20K/year (fees, meetings)
- W3C membership: $7.9-77K/year (based on size)
- Legal review: $20-50K (IPR, patents)
- Technical writing: $30-50K (formatting, editing)
- **Total: $75-200K over 3 years**

### Funding Sources
- Industry sponsorship
- Government grants (NIST, NSF, EU Horizon)
- Foundation support
- Crowdfunding from community

## 9. Risk Mitigation

### Technical Risks
- **Complexity**: Modularize specification
- **Scalability concerns**: Provide benchmarks
- **Security questions**: Formal proofs, audits

### Political Risks
- **Competing standards**: Show unique value
- **Vendor resistance**: Build coalition
- **Regulatory concerns**: Early engagement

### Timeline Risks
- **Slow adoption**: Parallel tracks
- **Scope creep**: Clear boundaries
- **Resource constraints**: Phased approach

## 10. Success Metrics

### Year 1
- Internet-Draft published
- 3+ implementations
- W3C CG formed with 20+ members
- ISO NWIP submitted

### Year 2
- IETF WG adoption
- ISO CD ballot passed
- W3C CG Report published
- 10+ organizations deploying

### Year 3
- IETF RFC published
- ISO DIS approved
- W3C WG chartered
- Production deployments

## Summary

The path to standardization requires:
1. **Technical excellence**: Complete, clear specification
2. **Industry support**: Multiple implementers and users
3. **Political navigation**: Building consensus
4. **Resource commitment**: Time, money, and people
5. **Strategic patience**: 2-3 year timeline

The Web4 specification is technically ready. The next phase requires building the organizational and political support necessary for successful standardization.

## Recommended Action

**Start with IETF** as it has the most open process and strongest alignment with Web4's distributed, trust-based architecture. Use early IETF success to build credibility for ISO and W3C submissions.

---

*"Standards are not just technical documents—they're social contracts that shape the future of technology."*