wdiff draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten
IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco
September 16, 2004
June 27, 2005

Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs

<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt>

<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt>

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which I become he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference mate-
rial
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." progress".

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

This Internet-Draft expires March, December 30, 2005.

Abstract

Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and
deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a
new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA).

In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can
be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management
of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise
instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues
that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning
values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on
the specific text that must be included in documents that place
demands on the IANA.

Contents

Status of this Memo.......................................... 1

1. Introduction............................................. 3

2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4
2.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5

3. Creating A Registry...................................... 6
3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions....................... 6

4. Registration maintenance................................. 8

5. Definitions.................. 7
3.2. What To Put In Documents................................. 8 Documents That Create A Registry..... 9
3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 10

4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 11
4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 11
4.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 12
4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 12

5. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 13
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 9 13
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space.. 9 Appeals............................................. 13
5.3. Creation of New Registries.......................... 10 Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 13

6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs.................... 11

7. Security Considerations.................................. 12

8. 14

7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 13
8.1. 14
7.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 13 14

8. IANA Considerations...................................... 15

9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 13 15

10. References.............................................. 13 15

11. Authors' Addresses...................................... 14 Authors‚اض Addresses.................................... 17

1. Introduction

Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other
well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or
MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has
been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be
assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption
or authentication algorithm for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such
fields have consistent values and interpretations in different
implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].

In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
a "name space"; its actual content value may be a name, text string, a number or
another kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name
space is called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each
assignment of a number in a name space is called a registration.

In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values
should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on
what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews
issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy
for assigning numbers to name spaces.

Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some
cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
further assignments can be made independently and with no further
(central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while
subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space
has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space
can be delegated, the scope of IANA only deals with assignments at is limited to the top
level. parts of the
namespace where IANA has authority.

This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' ‚اضMUST‚اض, ‚اضSHOULD‚اض and 'MAY', ‚اضMAY‚اض, and their
negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
"the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.

2. Issues To Consider

One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the
space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made
carefully to ensure that prevent exhaustion of the space doesn't become exhausted. space. If the space is
essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly
reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. Even
when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually
desirable to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of
or unnecessary wasting of a space. For example, if the space
consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent
organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to
the "best" names (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also
shown that some level of minimal review is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually
needed (this may not always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-
matter expert).

A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name
space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate,
as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments.

A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed
protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
review is often essential to prevent future interoperability
problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail.

In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no
potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be
given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA
can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given
specific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and
what information must be provided before a request for an assigned
number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an
assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow
it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity.

2.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts

In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate,
and the question becomes who should perform the review and how
rigorous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that
an IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand
should be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so
they cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible
for name spaces to be created through individual submission
documents, for which no WG is ever formed.

One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to
have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such
an action helps ensure that the IESG specification is publicly and relevant WGs
permanently available, and allows some review of the
assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] specification
prior to publication. This is the preferred way of ensuring review,
and is particularly important if any potential interoperability
issues can arise. For example, many assignments are not just
assignments, but also involve an element of protocol specification. A
new option may define fields that need to be parsed and acted on,
which (if specified poorly) may not fit cleanly with the architecture
of other options or the base protocols on which they are built.

In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to
get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful
(and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing
list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for
media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a
current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for
new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned,
or to give advice for persons who want help in understanding what a
proper registration should contain.

While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical
expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot
participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or
when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot
allow general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive
recommendations regarding a registration question. Instead, the IANA
will rely relies on
a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a
specific point-of-contact (one or The
designated expert is a small number of individuals) single individual who is responsible for
carrying out an appropriate evaluation and
acts upon the returned returning a recommendation from the designated expert.
to IANA. The designated expert can initiate is responsible for initiating and coordinate
coordinating as wide a review of an assignment request as may be
necessary to evaluate it properly. This may involve consultation with
a set of technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or
consultation with a working group (or its mailing list if the working
group has disbanded), etc. In some case, the designated expert
follows specific review guidelines as documented in a related
document. (See the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748,RFC3575]
for examples of some review criteria an expert follows for specific
protocol name spaces.)

Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
will appoint replacements if necessary.

Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined discussed in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
PROCESS]. 5.2. below.

Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be
removed by the IESG.

3. Creating A Registry

Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be created
together with an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and
guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.

3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions

The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to
date.
date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name
space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and
unambigous.
unambiguous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where
possible, since there their meaning is widely understood.

Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for
IANA to review such assignments and assignments are not
generally useful for interoperability.

Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have
significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header
lines in email messages.

Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See
[EXPERIMENTATION] for details.

Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values
provided they have been given control over that part of the
name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the
namespace according to one of the other policies.

Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers

First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so
long as they provide a point of contact and a brief
description of what the value would be used for. For
numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA;
with names, specific names text strings are usually requested.

Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP
and UDP port numbers.

Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
Expert is required. The required documentation and review
criteria to be used by the Designated Expert should be
provided when defining the registry.

Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
available reference, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is
possible. [XXX: who assesses whether a non-RFC document is
sufficiently clear for interoperability? IANA cannot.]

Examples: SCSP [SCSP]

IESG Approval

RFC Required - New assignments must be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis. as an
RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices.

IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) in [IANA-
CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFC publication of
documents RFCs
that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. AD-Sponsored
IETF Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is that the
document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the
IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable
working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed
assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or
otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or
damaging manner.

[XXX:

To ensure adequate community review, such documents should an explicit last call
be required?] Last Called.

Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent
Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].

Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
RFCs approved by the IESG.

Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG]

IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis.

IESG Approval is not intended to be used often. Rather, it
is intended to be used in conjunction with other policies
as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a
timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG
Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review
processes implied by other policies that could have been
employed for a particular assignment.

[XXX: Is Section 4.3. below sufficient to cover the case
that IESG is designed to handle?]

It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name
space into several categories, with assignments out of each category
handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is
split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are
globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required
policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site
specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it
possible to have different policies in place for different ranges.

4. Registration maintenance

Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for
maintaining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:

- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints and review as with new registrations.

- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration.

- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
reached in order to make necessary updates.

3.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry

The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered
in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other
protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's author‚اضs
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the
appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA
Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections
define what is needed for the different types of IANA actions.

5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions

Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu-
ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states:

This document has no IANA Actions.

5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space

Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:

- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
should be clear from the references.)

- For each value being requested, give it a unique name, e.g., TBD1,
TBD2, etc. Throughout the document where the actual IANA-assigned
value should be filled in, use "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure
that the final RFC has the correct assigned value filled in in all
of the relevant places where the value is listed in the final doc-
ument.

- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
some other use.

- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table.

As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:

IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.

5.3. Creation of New Registries

Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of
an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in main-
taining
maintaining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val-
ues)
values) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space.
In particular, instructions MUST include:

1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. The
name will appear on the IANA web page and will be refered referred to in
future Internet Drafts documents that need to allocate a value from the new
space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should
be provided.

2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new
value.

3) The process through which future assignments are made (see Sec-
tion 3).
Section 3.1).

Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name
the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name
should be relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the
time the document is sent to the IESG for approval.

If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public
mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types),
that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that
use of a Designated Expert MUST also be specified.

If the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an
outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the
requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity.

When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is
quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in Sec-
tion 3
Section 3.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred mecha-
nism
mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the
desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
above poli-
cies policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of considera-
tions
considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
For exam-
ple, example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
Expert, but includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should
follow.

For example, a document could say something like:

This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space
[RFCXXX]. The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType
field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry enti-
tled
entitled "FooType values". Initial values for FooType field are
given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert
Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a name and
the value.

Name Value Definition
---- ----- ----------
Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1
NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2

For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME-
LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575].

6. Applicability

3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries

Updating the registration process for an existing name space is
similar to Past and Future RFCs

For all that used when creating an new namespace. That is, a
document is produced that makes reference to the existing RFCs namespace
and then provides detailed management guidelines for each registry.
Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [RFC1818].

Example documents that either explicitly or implicitly rely updated the guidelines for managing (then)
pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575].

4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry

4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values

Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:

- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to evaluate men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments without specifying is, as that
should be clear from the references.)

- For each value being requested, give it a precise
evaluation policy, unique name. When the
value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout
the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled
in, use the "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC
has the correct assigned value filled in in all of the relevant
places where the value is listed in the final document. For values
that are text strings, a specific name can be suggested: IANA (in consultation will
assign the name, unless it conflicts with a name already in use.

- Normally, the IESG) will
continue values to decide what policy be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn‚اضt pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is appropriate. Changes acceptable to existing
policies can always include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be initiated through used (e.g., include the normal IETF consensus
process.

Any decisions made by text "the value XXX
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
some other use.

- The IANA can be appealed using Considerations section should summarize all of the normal IETF
appeals process IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS].
Specifically, appeals should appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table.

As an example, the following text could be directed used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:

IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the IESG, followed (if
necessary) by DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an appeal option code value of TBD2 to the IAB. By virtue
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.

4.2. Maintaining Registrations

Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the IAB's role as
overseer
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of IANA administration [RFC 1602], registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, MIME types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the IAB's decision registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state
who is
final.

All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. It is
appropriate to:

- Let the IANA author update the registration, subject to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines the same
constraints and review as with new registrations.

- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for managing
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the name space. author does not agree to change the
registration.

4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures

[XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is
appropriate to include??]

Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the
documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always
adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older
routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA
considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are
sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group
documents (for which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points
from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the
documented procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the
cases. In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there
is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but
the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG
is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The
intention is not to overule overrule documented procedures, or to obviate the
need for protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations,
but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious
that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA
process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy
a burden.

7. In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA
registration procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF
standards process.

5. Miscellaneous Issues

5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions

Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such
documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states:

This document has no IANA Actions.

5.2. Appeals

Appeals on registration decisions made by the IANA can be appealed to
the IESG using the normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section
6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to
the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue
of the IAB‚اضs role as overseer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the
IAB‚اضs decision is final.

5.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance

For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise
evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will
continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing
policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus
process.

All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
for managing the name space.

6. Security Considerations

Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated.

Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities
related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a
protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered,
information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to
existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true
security issues surrounding the use of a registered number.

An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be
as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In
particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated
with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to
state that "the security issues associated with this type have not
been assessed".

7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434

TBD

8.1.

Changes include:

- Major reordering of text to group the "creation of registries"
text in same section, etc.

- Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.

- Change "IETF Consensus" term to "IETF Review" and added more
clarifications.

- Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.

- Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in
RFCs".

- no doubt other things...

7.1. Changes Relative to -00

- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.

8. IANA Considerations

This document is all about IANA Considerations.

9. Acknowledgments

From RFC 2434:

Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and
patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document.
Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the
document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
borrowed from [MIME-REG].

10. References

[ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994. See also:
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

[BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283,
February 1998.

[DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

[EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January
2004.

[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

[IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work
of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B.
Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June
2000.

[IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

[IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 1825, August 1995.

[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.

[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.

[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache
Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April
1998.

[SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869,
November 1995.

[VENDOR-EXT] "Considerations on the Extensibility of IETF protocols",
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt

[RFC1818] Best Current Practices. J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter.
August 1995.

[RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake
3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September
2000.

[RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002.

[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003.

[RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005.

[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. July 2003.

[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed.. June 2004.

[RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H.
Alvestrand. October 2004.

11. Authors' Authors‚اض Addresses

Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195

Phone: 919-254-7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com

Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
5245 Arboretum Dr
Los Altos, CA
USA

Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
ances
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
MATION
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.