< draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt   draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-02.txt >
Network Working Group M. Cotton Network Working Group M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
Obsoletes: 4020 (if approved) August 27, 2013 Obsoletes: 4020 (if approved) October 16, 2013
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: BCP
Expires: February 28, 2014 Expires: April 19, 2014
Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points
draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01 draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-02
Abstract Abstract
This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points
by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC
Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply. This Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply. This
process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point
allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation
and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC that would and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC that would
normally trigger code point allocation. normally trigger code point allocation.
This document obsoletes RFC 4020. This document obsoletes RFC 4020.
Status of This Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Process for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Process for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Expiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Expiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need
to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other
protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate. Many of protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate. Many of
these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet
Assigned Number Authority (IANA). Several IANA allocation policies Assigned Number Authority (IANA). Several IANA allocation policies
are described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Some of them, such as "First are described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Some of them, such as "First
Come First Served" or "Expert Review", do not require a formal IETF Come First Served" or "Expert Review", do not require a formal IETF
action before the IANA performs allocation. However, in situations action before the IANA performs allocation. However, in situations
where code points are a scarce resource and/or the IETF community where code points are a scarce resource and/or the IETF community has
wishes to retain tight control of the protocol, policies such as consensus to retain tight control of the registry content, policies
"IETF Review" (formerly "IETF Consensus"), or "Standards Action" have such as "IETF Review" (formerly "IETF Consensus"), or "Standards
been used. Such allocation policies represents a problem in Action" have been used. Such allocation policies represents a
situations where implementation and/or deployment experience are problem in situations where implementation and/or deployment
desired or required before the document becomes an RFC. experience are desired or required before the document becomes an
RFC.
To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly
unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from
the registry; these may turn out to be different from those later the registry; these may turn out to be different from those later
assigned by IANA. To make this problem worse, "pre-RFC" assigned by IANA. To make this problem worse, "pre-RFC"
implementations are often developed and deployed based on these code implementations are often developed and deployed based on these code
point selections. This creates several potential interoperability point selections. This creates several potential interoperability
problems between early implementations and implementations of the problems between early implementations and implementations of the
final standard, as described below: final standard, as described below:
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
A policy for IANA early allocations was previously described in A policy for IANA early allocations was previously described in
[RFC4020]. This document obsoletes RFC 4020 and adds other [RFC4020]. This document obsoletes RFC 4020 and adds other
registration procedures to the types of registries that can qualify registration procedures to the types of registries that can qualify
for early allocation. for early allocation.
2. Conditions for Early Allocation 2. Conditions for Early Allocation
The following conditions must hold before a request for early The following conditions must hold before a request for early
allocation of code points will be considered by IANA: allocation of code points will be considered by IANA:
a. The code points must be from a space designated as "Specification a. The code points must be from a space designated as "RFC
Required" (where an RFC will be used as the stable reference), Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action". Additionally
"RFC Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action". code points from a "Specification Required" are allowed if the
specification will be published as an RFC.
b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
handle the protocol entities defined by the code points handle the protocol entities defined by the code points
(henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
in an Internet-Draft. in an Internet-Draft.
c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
d. There is sufficient interest in early (pre-RFC) implementation d. The working group chairs and ADs judge that there is sufficient
and deployment in the community as judged by working group chairs interest in the community for early (pre-RFC) implementation and
or ADs. deployment, or that failure to make an early allocation might
lead to contention for the code point in the field.
If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the processes in this memo
do not apply.
3. Process for Early Allocation 3. Process for Early Allocation
There are three processes associated with early allocation: making There are three processes associated with early allocation: making
the request for code points; following up on the request; and the request for code points; following up on the request; and
revoking an early allocation. It cannot be emphasized enough that revoking an early allocation. It cannot be emphasized enough that
these processes must have a minimal impact on IANA itself, or they these processes must have a minimal impact on IANA itself, or they
will not be feasible. will not be feasible.
The processes described below assume that the document in question is The processes described below assume that the document in question is
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
3. The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that 3. The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that
early allocation is appropriate in the case of the given early allocation is appropriate in the case of the given
document. document.
4. If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval 4. If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval
of the Area Director(s). The Area Director(s) may apply of the Area Director(s). The Area Director(s) may apply
judgement to the request especially if there is a risk of judgement to the request especially if there is a risk of
registry depletion. registry depletion.
5. The WG chairs request IANA to make an early allocation. 5. If the Area Directors approve step 4, the WG chairs request IANA
to make an early allocation.
6. IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking 6. IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking
it as "Temporary", valid for a period of one year from the date it as "Temporary", valid for a period of one year from the date
of allocation. The date of first allocation the date of expiry of allocation. The date of first allocation and the date of
should also be recorded in the registry and made visible to the expiry are also recorded in the registry and made visible to the
public. public.
Note that Internet-Drafts should not include a specific value of a Note that Internet-Drafts should not include a specific value of a
code point until this value has been formally allocated by IANA. code point until IANA has completed the early allocation for this
value.
3.2. Follow-Up 3.2. Follow-Up
It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working
Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the
specifications of the code points for which early allocation was specifications of the code points for which early allocation was
requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible. If at requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible. If at
some point changes that are not backward compatible are nonetheless some point changes that are not backward compatible are nonetheless
required, a decision needs to be made as to whether previously required, a decision needs to be made as to whether previously
allocated code points must be deprecated (see section 3.3 for more allocated code points must be deprecated (see section 3.3 for more
information on code point deprecation). The considerations include information on code point deprecation). The considerations include
aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of the older aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of the older
implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision between implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision between
older and newer implementations in the field. If the document older and newer implementations in the field. If the document
progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes code point progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes code point
allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and the WG allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and the WG
chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations, and of the chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations, and of the
code point values so allocated, in the IANA Considerations section of code point values so allocated, in the IANA Considerations section of
the RFC-to-be. Allocation is then just a matter of removing the the RFC-to-be. Allocation is then just a matter of removing the
"temporary" tag from the allocation description. "Temporary" tag from the allocation description.
3.3. Expiry 3.3. Expiry
If early allocations expire before the document progresses to the As described in Section 3.1, each Temporary assignment is recorded in
point where IANA normally makes allocations, the authors and WG the registry with the date of expiry of the assignment. If an early
chairs may repeat the process in section 3.1 to request renewal of allocation expires before the document progresses to the point where
the code points. At most, one renewal request may be made; thus, IANA normally makes allocations, the authors and WG chairs may repeat
authors should choose carefully when the original request is to be the process in section 3.1 to request renewal of the code points. At
made. most, one renewal request may be made; thus, authors should choose
carefully when the original request is to be made.
As an exception to the above rule, under rare circumstances, more As an exception to the above rule, under rare circumstances, more
than one allocation renewal may be justified. All such renewal than one allocation renewal may be justified. All such further
requests must be reviewed by the IESG. The renewal request to the renewal requests must be reviewed by the IESG. The renewal request
IESG must include the reasons why such renewal is necessary, and the to the IESG must include the reasons why such further renewal is
WG's plans regarding the specification. necessary, and the WG's plans regarding the specification.
If a follow-up request is not made, or the document fails to progress If a follow-up request is not made, or the document fails to progress
to an RFC, the WG chairs are responsible for informing IANA that the to an RFC, the assignment will remain visible in the registry but the
code points are to be marked "deprecated" (and are not to be temporary assignment will be shown to have expired as indicated by
allocated). The WG chairs are further responsible for informing IANA the expiry date. The WG chairs are responsible for informing IANA
when the deprecated code points can be completely de-allocated (i.e., that the expired assignments are not required and that the code
made available for new allocations). Implementers and deployers need points are to be marked "deprecated".
to be aware that this deprecation and de-allocation could take place
at any time after expiry, and an expired early allocation is
therefore best considered as deprecated.
In particular, it is not IANA's responsibility to track the status of A deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use as
allocations, their expiration, or when they may be re-allocated. described in any document (that is, it is not allocated), and is not
available for allocation in a future document. The WG chairs may
inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely de-
allocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any time
after it has been deprecated. Factors influencing this decision will
include whether there may be implementations using the previous
temporary allocation, and the availability of other unallocated code
points in the registry.
Implementers and deployers need to be aware that this deprecation and
de-allocation could take place at any time after expiry, and an
expired early allocation is therefore best considered as deprecated.
It is not IANA's responsibility to track the status of allocations,
their expiration, or when they may be re-allocated.
Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG and at Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG and at
the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not
expired), these allocations must not be expired while the document is expired), these allocations must not be considered to have expired
under IESG consideration or waiting in the RFC Editor's queue after while the document is under IESG consideration or waiting in the RFC
approval by the IESG. Editor's queue after approval by the IESG.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document defines procedures for early allocation of code points This document defines procedures for early allocation of code points
in the registries with the "Specification Required", "RFC Required", in the registries with the "Specification Required", "RFC Required",
"IETF Review", and "Standards Action" policies and as such directly "IETF Review", and "Standards Action" policies and as such directly
affects IANA. affects IANA. This document removes the need for registries to be
marked as specifically allowing early allocation. IANA is requested
to clean up the registries by removing any such markings.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
It is important to keep in mind 'denial of service' attacks on IANA It is important to keep in mind 'denial of service' attacks on IANA
as a result of the processes in this memo. There are two that are as a result of the processes in this memo. There are two that are
immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations and immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations and
process overloading of IANA itself. The processes described here process overloading of IANA itself. The processes described here
attempt to alleviate both of these, but they should be subject to attempt to alleviate both of these, but they should be subject to
scrutiny by IANA to ensure protection, and IANA may at any time scrutiny by IANA to ensure protection, and IANA may at any time
request the IESG to suspend the procedures described in this request the IESG to suspend the procedures described in this
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a
WG chair might be put under pressure to obtain an early allocation WG chair might be put under pressure to obtain an early allocation
for a protocol extension for a particular company or for another SDO for a protocol extension for a particular company or for another SDO
even though it might be predicted that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation even though it might be predicted that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation
would reject the approach that is documented. The requirement for AD would reject the approach that is documented. The requirement for AD
consent of early review is an important safe-guard, and ADs with any consent of early review is an important safe-guard, and ADs with any
concern are strongly recommended to escalate the issue for IESG-wide concern are strongly recommended to escalate the issue for IESG-wide
discussion. discussion.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020,
2005. February 2005.
[RFC4794] Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794, December [RFC4794] Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794,
2006. December 2006.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Bert Wijnen, Adrian Farrel, and Bill Fenner for their Many thanks to Bert Wijnen, Adrian Farrel, and Bill Fenner for their
input on RFC 4020. Thank you to Kireeti Kompella and Alex Zinin for input on RFC 4020. Thank you to Kireeti Kompella and Alex Zinin for
authoring RFC4020. Thank you to Adrian Farrel, Stewart Bryant, Leo authoring RFC4020. Thank you to Adrian Farrel, Stewart Bryant, Leo
Vegoda for their reviews of this document. Vegoda, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, Loa Andersson, Tom
Petch, Robert Sparks and Eric Rosen for their reviews of this
document.
Author's Address Author's Address
Michelle Cotton Michelle Cotton
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
United States of America United States of America
Phone: +1-310-823-5800 Phone: +1-310-823-5800
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 86 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/