idnits 2.17.1 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 198. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 209. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 216. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 222. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2780, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2780 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2780, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-07-19) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 8, 2008) is 5952 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 760 (Obsoleted by RFC 791) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Arkko 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 2780 (if approved) S. Bradner 5 Intended status: Standards Track Harvard University 6 Expires: July 11, 2008 January 8, 2008 8 IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field 9 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-02 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2008. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 40 Abstract 42 This document revises the IANA guidelines for allocating new Protocol 43 field values in IPv4 header. It modifies the rules specified in RFC 44 2780 by removing the Expert Review option. The change will also 45 affect the allocation of Next Header field values in IPv6. 47 1. Introduction 49 This document revises the IANA guidelines [RFC2780] for allocating 50 new Protocol field values in IPv4 header [RFC0760]. The change will 51 also be applicable for IPv6, as the IANA guidelines for IPv6 Next 52 Header values [RFC2460] allocation refer to the IPv4 guidelines. 54 Previously, RFC 2780 allowed such allocations to happen through IESG 55 Approval, Standards action, or Expert Review processes 56 [RFC2780, RFC2434]. The Expert Review process was specified to be 57 used only in the case where a non-disclosure agreement was involved: 59 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 60 an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. The 61 Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases 62 where non-disclosure information is involved. In these cases the 63 expert(s) should be designated by the IESG. 65 The need for the Standards Action rule is obvious as the IETF keeps 66 developing new protocols. It is equally obvious that there is a need 67 to allow experimental allocations in this space, see RFC 4727 68 [RFC4727] for an example. Similarly, there are cases when it makes 69 sense to allocate values out of this space for other non-Standards 70 Track or non-IETF uses. However, the size of the field is 256 71 values, and 55% of these were in use at the time this document was 72 written. As a result, a sanity check is needed to ensure that 73 allocations are not made needlessly. RFC 2780 specifies the IESG 74 Approval rule to take care of these sanity checks for the non- 75 Standards Track cases. The judgment call can take into account the 76 existence of a stable protocol specification, constituency that wants 77 to use it, need to avoid duplicated allocations for the same purpose, 78 whether protocol number allocation is the right solution for this 79 problem as opposed to, say, a TCP port, and so on. 81 However, we now believe that the non-disclosure agreement option is 82 not appropriate for allocations in this space. Traditionally, non- 83 disclosure agreements have been used by the IANA when a company was 84 developing a proprietary protocol and did not want to disclose new 85 areas of research or future products. The protocol space is limited 86 enough that we no longer believe that it is reasonable to use the 87 resource for such proprietary protocols. Thus, we believe that 88 allocations should only be made using the IESG Approval or Standards 89 Action processes when there are public specifications that can be 90 reviewed. 92 As a result, this document revises the RFC 2780 rules by removing the 93 option for Expert Review for the IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header 94 fields. This document takes no position on the allocation of other 95 parameters with non-disclosure agreements, as those parameters may 96 require different policies. 98 2. IANA Considerations 100 This document replaces the RFC 2780 Section 4.3 rule [RFC2780] with 101 the following: 103 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 104 an IESG Approval or Standards Action process. 106 This document makes also an implicit change to the rule for the IPv6 107 Next Header field in Section 5.3 of RFC 2780. That rule refers to 108 the rule in Section 4.3 of the same RFC. From now on this reference 109 should be understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without 110 the Expert Review option. 112 3. Security Considerations 114 This specification does not change the security properties of the 115 affected protocols. 117 4. Acknowledgments 119 Issues with the original RFC 2780 rules were uncovered in discussions 120 of the IETF - IANA team. The team also provided background 121 information on the practical difficulties encountered with non- 122 disclosure agreements. The authors would like to thank Thomas 123 Narten, Bill Fenner, and Michelle Cotton in particular. 125 5. References 127 5.1. Normative References 129 [RFC0760] Postel, J., "DoD standard Internet Protocol", RFC 760, 130 January 1980. 132 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 133 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 134 October 1998. 136 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 137 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 139 [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For 140 Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", 141 BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000. 143 5.2. Informative References 145 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 146 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 148 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2780 150 Section 4.3 from RFC 2780 has been changed from: 152 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 153 an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. The 154 Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases 155 where non- disclosure information is involved. In these cases the 156 expert(s) should be designated by the IESG. 158 to: 160 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 161 an IESG Approval or Standards Action process. 163 In addition, RFC 2780 Section 5.3 reference to IPv4 rules should be 164 understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without the 165 Expert Review option. 167 Authors' Addresses 169 Jari Arkko 170 Ericsson 171 Jorvas 02420 172 Finland 174 Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net 176 Scott Bradner 177 Harvard University 178 Cambridge, MA 02138 179 US 181 Phone: +1 617 495 3864 182 Email: sob@harvard.edu 184 Full Copyright Statement 186 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 188 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 189 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 190 retain all their rights. 192 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 193 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 194 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 195 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 196 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 197 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 198 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 200 Intellectual Property 202 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 203 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 204 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 205 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 206 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 207 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 208 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 209 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 211 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 212 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 213 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 214 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 215 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 216 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 218 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 219 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 220 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 221 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 222 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 224 Acknowledgment 226 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 227 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).