idnits 2.17.1 draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09.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 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 1228. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1199. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1206. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1212. 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 abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC2434, but the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (March 26, 2008) is 5874 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 758, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3968' is defined on line 1107, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (ref. 'IANA-CONSIDERATIONS') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4288 (ref. 'MIME-REG') (Obsoleted by RFC 6838) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-carpenter-extension-recs-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2929 (Obsoleted by RFC 5395) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3171 (Obsoleted by RFC 5771) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3978 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3932 (Obsoleted by RFC 5742) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4306 (Obsoleted by RFC 5996) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4366 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246, RFC 6066) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4346 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4395 (Obsoleted by RFC 7595) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4995 (Obsoleted by RFC 5795) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 21 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten 3 IBM 4 Harald Alvestrand 5 Obsoletes (if approved): 2434 Google 6 Expires: September 21, 2007 March 26, 2008 7 Intended Status: BCP 9 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 36 This Internet-Draft expires in six months. 38 Abstract 40 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 41 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and 42 deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a 43 new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication 44 transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent 45 values and interpretations across all implementations, their 46 assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF 47 protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers 48 Authority (IANA). 50 In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs 51 guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be 52 assigned, or when modifications to existing values can be made. If 53 IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space, 54 the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that 55 role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in 56 formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and 57 provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that 58 must be included in documents that place demands on IANA. 60 This document obsoletes RFC 2434. 62 Contents 64 Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 66 1. Introduction............................................. 4 68 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 5 70 3. Designated Experts....................................... 5 71 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5 72 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7 73 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 8 75 4. Creating A Registry...................................... 9 76 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 10 77 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 13 78 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries.... 16 80 5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry........... 16 81 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 16 82 5.2. Updating Registrations.............................. 18 83 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 18 85 6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 19 86 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 19 87 6.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 20 88 6.3. After-The-Fact Registrations........................ 20 89 6.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values.......................... 20 91 7. Appeals.................................................. 21 93 8. Mailing Lists............................................ 21 95 9. Security Considerations.................................. 21 97 10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................ 22 99 11. IANA Considerations..................................... 23 101 12. Acknowledgments......................................... 23 103 13. Normative References.................................... 23 105 14. Informative References.................................. 23 107 15. Authors' Addresses...................................... 26 109 1. Introduction 111 Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other 112 well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or 113 MIME media types [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has been defined 114 and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., a 115 new option type in DHCP [DHCP-OPTIONS] or a new encryption or 116 authentication transform for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such 117 fields have consistent values and interpretations in different 118 implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central 119 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet 120 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU]. 122 In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field 123 a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or 124 another kind of value. The binding or association of a specific value 125 with a particular purpose within a name space is called an assigned 126 number (or assigned value, or sometimes a "code point", "protocol 127 constant", or "protocol parameter"). Each assignment of a value in a 128 name space is called a registration. 130 In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs 131 guidelines describing the conditions under which new values should be 132 assigned, or when (and how) modifications to existing values can be 133 made. This document provides guidelines to authors on what sort of 134 text should be added to their documents in order to provide IANA 135 clear guidelines and reviews issues that should be considered in 136 formulating an appropriate policy for assigning numbers to name 137 spaces. 139 Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some 140 cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that 141 further assignments can be made independently and with no further 142 (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the 143 IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while 144 subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space 145 has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as 146 defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]; IANA manages the 147 subtree rooted at "iso.org.dod.internet" (1.3.6.1) . When a name 148 space is delegated, the scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the 149 namespace where IANA has authority. 151 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 152 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 153 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. 154 For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to 155 the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards 156 process. 158 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary 160 One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the 161 space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made 162 carefully to prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is 163 essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion will 164 probably not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is 165 essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at 166 least a minimal review prior to assignment in order to: 168 - prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For 169 example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be 170 desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings 171 that correspond to desirable names (e.g., existing company names). 173 - provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and 174 is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal 175 review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent 176 assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not 177 actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for an essentially 178 equivalent service already exists). 180 A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name 181 space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate, 182 as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments. 184 A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential 185 impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed 186 protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed, 187 review is often essential to avoid future interoperability problems 188 [PROTOCOL-EXT]. 190 When the name space is essentially unlimited and there are no 191 potential interoperability issues, assigned numbers can safely be 192 given out to anyone without any subjective review. In such cases, 193 IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is given 194 specific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and 195 what information must be provided as part of a well-formed request 196 for an assigned number. 198 3. Designated Experts 200 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts 202 It should be noted that IANA does not create or define assignment 203 policy itself; rather, it carries out policies that have been defined 204 by others and published in RFCs. IANA must be given a set of 205 guidelines that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal 206 subjectivity and without requiring any technical expertise with 207 respect to the protocols that make use of a registry. 209 In many cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate, 210 and the question becomes who should perform the review and what is 211 the purpose of the review. One might think that an IETF Working 212 Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should be consulted. 213 In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they cannot be 214 considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for name spaces 215 to be created through individual submission documents, for which no 216 WG is ever formed. 218 One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to 219 have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such 220 an action helps ensure that the specification is publicly and 221 permanently available, and allows some review of the specification 222 prior to publication and assignment of the requested code points. 223 This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly 224 important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For 225 example, some assignments are not just assignments, but also involve 226 an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields 227 that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may 228 not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base 229 protocols on which they are built. 231 In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 232 get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful 233 (and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing 234 list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for 235 media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a 236 current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for 237 new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, 238 or to give advice to persons wanting help in understanding what a 239 proper registration should contain. 241 While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical 242 feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some 243 time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate 244 in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such 245 discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated 246 expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an 247 assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual who 248 is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and 249 returning a recommendation to IANA. 251 It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated 252 experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert 253 to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards 254 requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the 255 expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA whether or not 256 to make the assignment or registration. 258 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 260 The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating 261 the appropriate review of an assignment request. The review may be 262 wide or narrow, depending to the situation and the judgment of the 263 designated expert. This may involve consultation with a set of 264 technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or 265 consultation with a working group (or its mailing list if the working 266 group has disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows 267 specific review criteria as documented with the protocol that creates 268 or uses the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of 269 [RFC3748,RFC3575] for examples that have been done for specific name 270 spaces). 272 Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions 273 to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to 274 be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are 275 expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, 276 or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally-accepted 277 norms, e.g., those in section 3.3. 279 Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail. 281 Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (normally upon 282 recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically 283 named at the time a document creating or updating a name space is 284 approved by the IESG, but as experts originally appointed may later 285 become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary. 287 For some registries, it has proven useful to have multiple designated 288 experts. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a 289 request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups. In 290 cases of disagreement among those experts, it is the responsibility 291 of those experts to make a single clear recommendation to IANA. It is 292 not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among experts. In 293 extreme situations (e.g., deadlock) the IESG may need to step in to 294 resolve the problem. 296 In registries where a pool of experts evaluates requests, the pool 297 should have a single chair responsible for defining how requests are 298 to be assigned to and reviewed by experts. In some cases, the expert 299 pool may consist of a primary and backups, with the backups involved 300 only when the primary expert is unavailable. In other cases, IANA 301 might assign requests to a individual members in sequential or 302 approximate random order. In the event that IANA finds itself havnig 303 received conflicting advice from its experts, it is the 304 responsibility of the pool's chair to resolve the issue and provide 305 IANA with clear 307 Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be 308 removed by the IESG. 310 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews 312 In the eight years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to 313 use, experience has led to the following observations: 315 - a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally 316 within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex 317 ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for those 318 needing assignments, such as when products need code points to 319 ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed under a 320 firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester and 321 IANA should have some transparency into the process if an answer 322 cannot be given quickly. 324 - if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within 325 a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or with a 326 reasonable explanation for a delay (e.g., some requests may be 327 particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must 328 raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by 329 delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take 330 appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and 331 accepts their responsibilities, or appoint a new expert. 333 - The designated expert is not required to personally bear the 334 burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a 335 shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as 336 appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting 337 the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have 338 the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert 339 must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. 341 In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no 342 specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the 343 presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless 344 there is a compelling reason to the contrary. Possible reasons to 345 deny a request include: 347 - scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints 348 should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number 349 of codepoints is made, when a single codepoint is the norm. 351 - documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure 352 interoperability. 354 - the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the 355 extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally 356 understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and 357 would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the 358 intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a 359 personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant 360 differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security 361 model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message 362 type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed 363 systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar 364 result), etc. 366 - the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. 368 - the extension would conflict with one under active development by 369 the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster 370 interoperability. 372 4. Creating A Registry 374 Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be 375 created, an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and 376 guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. 378 Once a registry has been created, IANA records assignments that have 379 been made. The following labels describe the status of an individual 380 (or range) of assignments: 382 Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in 383 Section 4.1 385 Experimental: Available for experimental use as described in 386 [EXPERIMENTATION]. IANA does not record specific assignments for 387 any particular use. 389 Unassigned: Unused and available for assignment via documented 390 procedures. 392 Reserved: Not to be assigned. Reserved values are held for special 393 uses, such as to extend the name space when it become exhausted. 395 Reserved values are not available for general assignment. 397 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions 399 The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use 400 today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to 401 date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name 402 space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual 403 requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and 404 unambiguous. However, use of these terms is RECOMMENDED where 405 possible, since their meaning is widely understood. 407 Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and 408 purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to 409 prevent multiple sites from using the same value in 410 different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for 411 IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record 412 them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad 413 interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites 414 making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no 415 conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use). 417 Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP-IANA], Fibre 418 Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044], Exchange Types in the 419 IKEv2 header [RFC4306]. 421 Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the 422 purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See 423 [EXPERIMENTATION] for details. 425 Example: Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, 426 UDP, and TCP Headers [RFC4727]. 428 Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values 429 provided they have been given control over that part of the 430 name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the 431 namespace according to one of the other policies. 433 Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers, IP addresses. 435 First Come First Served - Assignments are made to anyone on a 436 first come, first served basis. There is no substantive 437 review of the request, other than to ensure that it is 438 well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. 439 However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical 440 information, such as a a point of contact (including an 441 email address) and a brief description of how the value 442 will be used. Additional information specific to the type 443 of value requested may also need to be provided, as defined 444 by the name space. For numbers, the exact value is 445 generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text 446 strings can usually be requested. 448 Examples: SASL mechanism names [RFC4422], LDAP Protocol 449 Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520]. 451 Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated 452 Expert is required. The required documentation and review 453 criteria for use by the Designated Expert should be 454 provided when defining the registry. For example, see 455 Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748]. 457 Examples: EAP Method Types [RFC3748], HTTP Digest AKA 458 algorithm versions [RFC4169], URI schemes [RFC4395], 459 GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]. 461 Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be 462 documented in a permanent and readily available public 463 specification, in sufficient detail so that 464 interoperability between independent implementations is 465 possible. When used, Specification Required also implies 466 usage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public 467 specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear 468 to allow interoperable implementations. The intention 469 behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document 470 can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable 471 long after IANA assignment of the requested value. 472 Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this 473 requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also 474 cover the case of a document published outside of the RFC 475 path. For RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is 476 expected to provide the necessary review for 477 interoperability, though the Designated Expert may be a 478 particularly well-qualified person to perform such a 479 review. 481 Examples: Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model 482 Identifiers [RFC4124], TLS ClientCertificateType 483 identifiers [RFC4346], ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC4995]. 485 RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an 486 RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices. Unless otherwise 487 specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (e.g., 488 Informational, Experimental, Standards Track, etc.) 490 IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA- 491 CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs 492 that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored 493 or IETF WGs Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is 494 that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed 495 by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if 496 suitable working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the 497 proposed assignment will not negatively impact 498 interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an 499 inappropriate or damaging manner. 501 To ensure adequate community review, such documents are 502 shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG) 503 documents with an IETF Last Call. 505 Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025], Accounting- 506 Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS Handshake 507 Hello Extensions [RFC4366]. 509 Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track 510 RFCs approved by the IESG. 512 Examples: BGP message types [RFC4271], Mobile Node 513 Identifier option types [RFC4283], DCCP Packet Types 514 [RFC4340]. 516 IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG. 517 Although there is no requirement that the request be 518 documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request 519 documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case 520 basis. 522 IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a 523 "common case;" indeed, it has seldom been used in practice 524 during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is 525 intended to be available in conjunction with other policies 526 as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other 527 allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a 528 timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG 529 Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review 530 processes implied by other policies that could have been 531 employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would 532 be appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is 533 desired and there is strong consensus for making the 534 assignment (e.g., WG consensus). 536 The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation 537 under IESG Approval: 539 - The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another 540 path for registration is available that is more 541 appropriate and there is no compelling reason to use 542 that path. 544 - before approving a request, the community should be 545 consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as 546 much information as is reasonably possible about the 547 request. 549 Examples: IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC3171], IPv4 IGMP 550 Type and Code values [RFC3228], Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and 551 Option values [RFC3775]. 553 It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name 554 space into multiple categories, with assignments within each category 555 handled differently. For example, many protocols now partition name 556 spaces into two (or even more) parts, where one range is reserved for 557 Private or Experimental Use, while other ranges are reserved for 558 globally unique assignments assigned following some review process. 559 Dividing a name space into ranges makes it possible to have different 560 policies in place for different ranges. 562 Examples: LDAP [RFC4520], Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) 563 [RFC4446]. 565 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry 567 The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered 568 in formulating a policy for assigning values in name spaces. It is 569 the Working Group and/or document author's job to formulate an 570 appropriate policy and specify it in the appropriate document. In 571 almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Considerations" section is 572 appropriate. The following and later sections define what is needed 573 for the different types of IANA actions. 575 Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of 576 an existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining 577 that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST 578 provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In 579 particular, instructions MUST include: 581 1) The name of the registry (or sub-registry) being created and/or 582 maintained. The name will appear on the IANA web page and will 583 be referred to in future documents that need to allocate a value 584 from the new space. The full name (and abbreviation, if 585 appropriate) should be provided. It is highly desirable that the 586 chosen name not be easily confusable with the name of another 587 registry. When creating a sub-registry, the registry that it is 588 a part of should be clearly identified. When referring to an 589 already existing registry, providing a URL to precisely identify 590 the registry is helpful. All such URLs, however, will be removed 591 from the RFC prior to final publication. For example, documents 592 could contain: [TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take 593 place at the following location: 594 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry] 596 2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order 597 to assign a new value. This information may include the need to 598 document relevant security considerations, if any. 600 3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a 601 value from the namespace. 603 Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name 604 the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name 605 should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time 606 the document is sent to the IESG for approval. 608 If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public 609 mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types), 610 that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that 611 when mailing lists are specified, the requirement for a 612 Designated Expert MUST also be specified (see Section 3). 614 If IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an 615 outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the 616 requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity. 618 4) The size, format and syntax of registry entries. When creating a 619 new name/number space, authors must describe any technical 620 requirements on registry (and sub-registry) values (e.g., valid 621 ranges for integers, length limitations on strings, etc.) as 622 well as the exact format that registry values should be 623 displayed in. For number assignments, one should specify 624 whether values are to be recorded in decimal, hexadecimal or 625 some other format. For strings, the encoding format should be 626 specified (e.g., ASCII, UTF8, etc.) Authors should also clearly 627 specify what fields to record in the registry. 629 5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions should 630 be provided to identify any initial assignments or 631 registrations. In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved 632 for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be 633 clearly indicated. 635 When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is 636 quite acceptable to pick one (or more) of the example policies listed 637 in Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the 638 preferred mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide 639 the desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the 640 above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of 641 considerations should be taken into account by the review process. 642 For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated 643 Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated 644 Expert should follow. 646 For example, a document could say something like: 648 This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see 649 Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space 650 [to be removed upon publication: 651 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters] [DHCP- 652 OPTIONS,DHCP-IANA]: 654 Data 655 Tag Name Length Meaning 656 ---- ---- ------ ------- 657 TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server 659 The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which 660 IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled 661 "FooType values" under the FooBar option. Initial values for the 662 DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments 663 are to be made through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. 664 Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its 665 associated value. 667 Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition 668 ---- ------------------------ ---------- 669 0 Reserved 670 1 Frobnitz See Section y.1 671 2 NitzFrob See Section y.2 672 3-254 Unassigned 673 255 Reserved 675 For examples of documents that provide detailed guidance to IANA on 676 the issue of assigning numbers, consult [RFC2929, RFC3575, RFC3968, 677 RFC4520]. 679 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries 681 Updating the registration process for an already existing (i.e., 682 previously created) name space (whether created explicitly or 683 implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when creating a 684 new namespace. That is, a document is produced that makes reference 685 to the existing namespace and then provides detailed guidelines for 686 handling assignments in each individual name space. Such documents 687 are normally processed as BCPs [IETF-PROCESS]. 689 Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then) 690 pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575]. 692 5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry 694 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values 696 Often, documents request an assignment from an already existing name 697 space (i.e., one created by a previously-published RFC). In such 698 cases: 700 - Documents should clearly identify the name space in which each 701 value is to be registered. If the registration goes into a sub- 702 registry, the author should clearly describe where the assignment 703 or registration should go. It is helpful to use the exact name 704 space name as listed on the IANA web page (and defining RFC), and 705 cite the RFC where the name space is defined. 707 Note 1: There is no need to mention what the assignment policy for 708 new assignments is, as that should be clear from the references. 710 Note 2: When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to 711 precisely identify the registry is helpful. Such URLs, however, 712 should usually be removed from the RFC prior to final publication, 713 since IANA URLs are not guaranteed to be stable in the future. In 714 cases where it is important to include a URL in the document, IANA 715 should should concur on its inclusion. 717 As an example, documents could contain: [TO BE REMOVED: This 718 registration should take place at the following location: 719 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry] 721 - Each value requested should be given a unique reference. When the 722 value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout 723 the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled 724 in, use the "TBDx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC 725 has the correct assigned values inserted in in all of the relevant 726 places where the value is expected to appear in the final 727 document. For values that are text strings, a specific name can be 728 suggested. IANA will normally assign the name, unless it conflicts 729 with a name already in use. 731 - Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA and documents 732 should specify values of "TBD". However, in some cases a value may 733 have been used for testing or in early implementations. In such 734 cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what specific 735 value should be used (together with the reason for the choice). 736 For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is 737 suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be 738 noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to 739 assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number 740 has already been assigned for some other use. 742 For some registries, IANA has a longstanding policy prohibiting 743 assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization name 744 basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless there 745 is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this 746 document is intended to change those policies or prevent their 747 future application. 749 - The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA 750 actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the 751 document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is 752 generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also helpful 753 for this table to be in the same format as it should appear on the 754 IANA web site. For example: 756 Value Description Reference 757 -------- ------------------- --------- 758 TBD1 Foobar [RFCXXXX] 760 Note: in cases where authors feel that including the full table is 761 too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table, 762 but may include a note asking the table be removed prior to 763 publication of the final RFC. 765 As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment 766 of a DHCPv6 option number: 768 IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS 769 Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to 770 the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space 771 defined in section 24.3 of RFC 3315. 773 5.2. Updating Registrations 775 Registrations are a request to assign a new value, including the 776 related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even 777 after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain 778 additional information that may need to be updated over time. For 779 example, MIME media types, character sets, language tags, etc. 780 typically include more information than just the registered value 781 itself. Example information can include point of contact information, 782 security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In 783 such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state 784 who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. In 785 different cases, it may be appropriate to specify one or more of the 786 following: 788 - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same 789 constraints and review as with new registrations. 791 - Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for 792 cases where others have significant objections to claims in a 793 registration, but the author does not agree to change the 794 registration. 796 - Designate the IESG, a Designated Expert or another entity as 797 having the right to change the registrant associated with a 798 registration and any requirements or conditions on doing so. 799 This is mainly to get around the problem when a registrant 800 cannot be reached in order to make necessary updates. 802 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 804 Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the 805 documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always 806 adequately cover the reality after the protocol is deployed. For 807 example, many older routing protocols do not have documented, 808 detailed IANA considerations. In addition, documented IANA 809 considerations are sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even 810 working group documents (for which there is strong consensus) to 811 obtain code points from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. 812 In other cases, the documented procedures are unclear or neglected to 813 cover all the cases. In order to allow assignments in individual 814 cases where there is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should 815 go forward, but the documented procedures do not support such an 816 assignment, the IESG is granted authority to approve assignments in 817 such cases. The intention is not to overrule properly documented 818 procedures, or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document 819 their IANA Considerations. Instead, the intention is to permit 820 assignments in individual cases where it is obvious that the 821 assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA process just to 822 assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy a burden. 824 In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA registration 825 procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF standards 826 process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for needed 827 assignments. If the IESG has had to take the action in this section, 828 it is a strong indicator that the IANA registration procedures should 829 be updated, possibly in parallel with ongoing protocol work. 831 6. Miscellaneous Issues 833 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 835 Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 836 know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown 837 that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no 838 IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order 839 to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that 840 the author has consciously made such a determination!), such 841 documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: 843 This document has no IANA Actions. 845 This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted 846 after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be 847 true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without 848 careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA 849 actions being performed. 851 If a specification makes use of values from a name space that is not 852 managed by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, e.g., with 853 wording such as: 855 The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo 856 registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document 857 has no IANA Actions. 859 In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered 860 valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be 861 considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may 862 be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made 863 clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as 865 [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.] 867 or 869 [RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.] 871 6.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance 873 For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on 874 IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evaluation 875 policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide 876 what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always 877 be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process. 879 All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to 880 register or otherwise manage name space assignments MUST provide 881 guidelines for managing the name space. 883 6.3. After-The-Fact Registrations 885 Occasionally, IANA becomes aware that an unassigned value from a 886 managed name space is in use on the Internet, or that an assigned 887 value is being used for a different purpose than originally 888 registered. IANA will not condone such misuse, i.e., procedures of 889 the type described in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In 890 the absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be 891 reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original 892 assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of 893 such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation 894 with the IESG is advised. 896 6.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values 898 Reclaiming previously-assigned values for reuse is tricky, because 899 doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems 900 still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely 901 difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use 902 of a particular value. However, in cases where the name space is 903 running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it 904 may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When reclaiming 905 unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be considered: 907 - attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a 908 value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if 909 so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never 910 shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be 911 known that a value was never actually used at all.) 913 - reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence 914 of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions 915 should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value 916 is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs 917 the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG approval is 918 needed in this case. 920 - it may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit 921 comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be 922 appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF 923 process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed 924 some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942] 926 7. Appeals 928 Appeals on registration decisions made by IANA can be appealed using 929 the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of 930 [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, 931 followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB, etc. 933 8. Mailing Lists 935 All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing 936 assignment requests as described in this document are subject to 937 whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are 938 currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision. 940 9. Security Considerations 942 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 943 authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to 944 instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept 945 clarifications from document authors, relevant WG chairs, Designated 946 Experts and mail list participants too. 948 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 949 protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities 950 related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a 951 protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, 952 information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to 953 existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true 954 security issues surrounding the use of a registered number. 956 An analysis of security issues is generally required for all 957 protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, 958 keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such 959 security considerations are usually included in the protocol document 960 [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA Considerations 961 associated with a particular registry to specify what (if any) 962 security considerations must be provided when assigning new values, 963 and the process for reviewing such claims. 965 10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434 967 Changes include: 969 - Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better 970 group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new 971 registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the 972 text most applicable to their needs. 974 - Numerous editorial changes to improve readability. 976 - Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more 977 clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF 978 Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) are quick to 979 make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in the 980 context of IANA Considerations. 982 - Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies. 984 - Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in 985 RFCs". 987 - "Specification Required" now implies use of Designated Expert to 988 evaluate specs for sufficient clarity. 990 - Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is to 991 make clear that Expert Reviewers are accountable to the community, 992 and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the default 993 case. 995 - Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal 996 RFC2026 appeals path is used. 998 - Added section about reclaiming unused value. 1000 - Added a section on after-the-fact registrations. 1002 - Added section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate 1003 possible assignments (e.g., by a designated expert) are subject to 1004 normal IETF rules. 1006 11. IANA Considerations 1008 This document is all about IANA Considerations, but has no IANA 1009 actions. 1011 12. Acknowledgments 1013 This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko, 1014 Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Barbara 1015 Denny, Spencer Dawkins, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley, 1016 John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus 1017 Westerlund and Bert Wijnen. 1019 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was: 1021 Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what 1022 IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently 1023 provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian 1024 Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 1025 document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was 1026 borrowed from [MIME-REG]. 1028 13. Normative References 1030 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1031 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1033 14. Informative References 1035 [ASSIGNED] "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line 1036 Database," J. Reynolds, Ed., RFC 3232, January 1037 2002. 1039 [DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP 1040 Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 1042 [DHCP-IANA] Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP 1043 Options and Message Types. R. Droms, RFC 2939, 1044 September 2000. 1046 [EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 1047 Considered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January 1048 2004. 1050 [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1051 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 1052 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 1054 [IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work 1055 of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B. 1056 Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June 1057 2000. 1059 [IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- 1060 Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 1062 [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. 1064 [IPSEC] S. Kent, K. Seo., "Security Architecture for the Internet 1065 Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 1067 [MIME-REG] "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures". 1068 N. Freed, J. Klensin. December 2005, RFC 4288. 1070 [PROTOCOL-EXT] "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", 1071 draft-carpenter-extension-recs-02.txt (Work in 1072 Progress). 1074 [RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake 1075 3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September 1076 2000. 1078 [RFC3171] "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments". 1079 Z. Albanna, K. Almeroth, D. Meyer, M. Schipper. 1080 August 2001. 1082 [RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management 1083 Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002. 1085 [RFC3552] Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations. 1086 E. Rescorla, B. Korver. July 2003. 1088 [RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial 1089 In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003. 1091 [RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), B. Aboba, L. 1092 Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz, 1093 Ed., RFC 3748, June, 2004. 1095 [RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005. 1097 [RFC3775] "Mobility Support in IPv6," D. Johnson, C. Perkins, J. 1098 Arkko. June 2004. 1100 [RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H. 1101 Alvestrand. October 2004. 1103 [RFC3942] "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 1104 4 (DHCPv4) Options", B. Volz. RFC 3942, November 1105 2004 1107 [RFC3968] "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field 1108 Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation 1109 Protocol (SIP)," G. Camarillo. RFC 3968, December 1110 2004. 1112 [RFC4005] "Diameter Network Access Server Application," P. Calhoun, 1113 G. Zorn, D. Spence, D. Mitton. August 2005. 1115 [RFC4025] "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in DNS," M. 1116 Richardson. March 2005. 1118 [RFC4044] "Fibre Channel Management MIB", K. McCloghrie. May 2005. 1120 [RFC4124] "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS 1121 Traffic Engineering," F. Le Faucheur, Ed.. June 1122 2005. 1124 [RFC4169] "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication 1125 Using Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) 1126 Version-2". V. Torvinen, J. Arkko, M. Naslund. 1127 November 2005. 1129 [RFC4271] "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," Y. Rekhter, Ed., T. 1130 Li, Ed., S. Hares, Ed.. January 2006. 1132 [RFC4283] "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)," A. 1133 Patel, K. Leung, M. Khalil, H. Akhtar, K. Chowdhury. 1134 November 2005. 1136 [RFC4306] "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", C. Kaufman, Ed. 1137 December 2005 1139 [RFC4340] "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)," E. Kohler, 1140 M. Handley, S. Floyd. March 2006 1142 [RFC4366] "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions," S. Blake- 1143 Wilson, M. Nystrom, D. Hopwood, J. Mikkelsen, T. 1144 Wright. April 2006. 1146 [RFC4346] "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1," 1147 T. Dierks, E. Rescorla. April 2006. 1149 [RFC4395] "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI 1150 Schemes," T. Hansen, T. Hardie, L. Masinter. 1151 February 2006. 1153 [RFC4422] "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)". A. 1154 Melnikov, Ed., K. Zeilenga, Ed.. June 2006. 1156 [RFC4446] "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation 1157 (PWE3)," L. Martini. April 2006. 1159 [RFC4520] "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations 1160 for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 1161 (LDAP)," K. Zeilenga. June 2006. 1163 [RFC4589] "Location Types Registry," H. Schulzrinne, H. Tschofenig. 1164 July 2006. 1166 [RFC4727] "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, 1167 and TCP Headers". B. Fenner. November 2006. 1169 [RFC4995] "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework," L-E. 1170 Jonsson, G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund. July 2007. 1172 15. Authors' Addresses 1174 Thomas Narten 1175 IBM Corporation 1176 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1177 PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 1178 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1180 Phone: 919-254-7798 1181 EMail: narten@us.ibm.com 1182 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 1183 Google 1184 Beddingen 10 1185 Trondheim, 7014 1186 Norway 1188 Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no 1190 Intellectual Property Statement 1192 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1193 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1194 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1195 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1196 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1197 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1198 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1199 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1201 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1202 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1203 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1204 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1205 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1206 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1208 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1209 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1210 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1211 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 1212 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 1214 Copyright Statement 1216 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 1218 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1219 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1220 retain all their rights. 1222 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1223 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1224 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1225 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1226 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1227 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1228 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.