< draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11.txt   draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt >
Network Working Group M. Cotton Network Working Group M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
BCP: 26 B. Leiba BCP: 26 B. Leiba
Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten
Expires: May 12, 2015 IBM Corporation Expires: October 05, 2016 IBM Corporation
November 10, 2014 April 05, 2016
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12
Abstract Abstract
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values
used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote
interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs To make assignments in a given registry prudently, IANA needs
guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be
assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values
can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation
of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that
the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues
that are likely in the operation of a registry. that are likely in the operation of a registry.
This is the third edition, and obsoletes RFC 5226. This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.
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 May 12, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 05, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Terminology Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . 10 2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . 11 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . 12 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 13 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 13 3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies . . . 13
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . 20
4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 23 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 23
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 25 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 25
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 31 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 31
14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 32 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 32
14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 32 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 33
15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) . . . . . . . . 33 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) . . . . . . . . 33
15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 34 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 34
15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 34 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 34
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values
used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote
interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860]. IANA services are Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860].
currently provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN).
The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types
[RFC4288] are two examples of such coordinations. [RFC4288] are two examples of such coordinations.
In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a
field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value
with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment
(or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point, (or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point,
protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is
called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a
skipping to change at page 4, line 6 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values
can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation
of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that
the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues
that are likely in the operation of a registry. that are likely in the operation of a registry.
Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the
specification with the title "IANA Considerations". specification with the title "IANA Considerations".
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA
The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to
provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and
instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in
other parts of the document, and should be included by reference other parts of the document, and should be included by reference
only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical
documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document
and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take. and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take.
If, for example, the registration of an item in a registry includes a
short description of the item being registered, that should be placed
in the IANA Considerations directly. But if it's necessary to
include a longer technical explanation of the purpose and use of the
item, the IANA Considerations should refer to a technical section of
the document where that information resides. Similarly, if the
document is pointing out the use of an existing assignment in a
registry, but makes no modification to the registration, that should
be in a technical section of the document, reserving the IANA
Considerations section for instructions to IANA.
An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies
each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such
as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear
references to elsewhere in the document for other information. references to elsewhere in the document for other information.
1.2. For More Information 1.2. For More Information
IANA maintains a web page that includes current important information IANA maintains a web page that includes current important information
from IANA. Document authors should check that page for additional from IANA. Document authors should check that page for additional
information, beyond what is provided here. information, beyond what is provided here.
<http://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>. <https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>.
1.3. Terminology Used In This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", [[The initial version of this should contain the bits that are
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this salient to most document authors -- perhaps a table of required
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. elements to create a new registry or update one, a bit about sub-
For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to registries, and the listing of well-known registration policies. ]]
the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards
process.
2. Creating and Revising Registries 2. Creating and Revising Registries
Defining a registry involves describing the namespace(s) to be Defining a registry involves describing the namespaces to be created,
created, listing an initial set of assignments (if appropriate), and listing an initial set of assignments (if applicable), and
documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
Before defining a registry, however, consider delegating the When defining a registry, consider structuring the namespace in such
namespace in some manner. This route should be pursued when a way that only top-level assignments need to be made with central
appropriate, as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with coordination, and those assignments can delegate lower-level
assignments. assignments so coordination for them can be distributed. This
lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments, and is
In particular, not all namespaces require a registry; in some cases, particularly useful in situations where distributed coordinators have
assignments can be made independently and with no further (central) better knowledge of their portion of the namespace and are better
coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, IANA only suited to handling those assignments.
deals with assignments at the higher levels, while subdomains are
administered by the organization to which the space has been
delegated. When a namespace is delegated in this manner, the scope
of IANA is limited to the parts of the namespace where IANA has
authority.
2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure 2.1. Organization of Registries
It's important to start with a word on the IANA registry structure.
All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page: All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page:
<http://www.iana.org/protocols>. <https://www.iana.org/protocols>.
That page lists registries in protocol category groups, like this: That page lists registries in protocol category groups, like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) Parameters Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) Parameters
ADSP Outbound Signing Practices RFC 5617 ADSP Outbound Signing Practices RFC 5617
IETF Review IETF Review
ADSP Specification Tags RFC 5617 ADSP Specification Tags RFC 5617
skipping to change at page 5, line 54 skipping to change at page 5, line 36
or IETF Review or IETF Review
32-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6793, 32-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6793,
RFC 6996 RFC 6996
RIR request to the IANA RIR request to the IANA
or IETF Review or IETF Review
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
The grouping allows related registries to be placed together, making The grouping allows related registries to be placed together, making
it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary
information. In the example section above, there are two registries information. In the example section above, all registries related to
related to the ADSP protocol, and they are both placed in the "ADSP the ADSP protocol are placed in the "ADSP Parameters" group.
Parameters" group.
Within the "ADSP Parameters" group are two registries: "ADSP Outbound Within the "ADSP Parameters" group are two registries: "ADSP Outbound
Signing Practices" and "ADSP Specification Tags". Clicking on the Signing Practices" and "ADSP Specification Tags". Clicking on the
title of one of these registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page title of one of these registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page
will take the reader to the details page for that registry. Often, will take the reader to the details page for that registry. Often,
multiple registries are shown on the same details page. multiple registries are shown on the same details page.
Unfortunately, we have been inconsistent in how we refer to these Unfortunately, we have been inconsistent in how we refer to these
entities. The group names, as they are referred to here, have been entities. The group names, as they are referred to here, have been
variously called "protocol category groups", "groups", "top-level variously called "protocol category groups", "groups", "top-level
registries", or just "registries". The registries under them have registries", or just "registries". The registries under them have
been called "registries" or "sub-registries". And when new been called "registries" or "sub-registries".
registries are created, the documents that define them often don't
specify the grouping at all, but only name the new registry. This
results in questions from IANA and delays in processing, or, worse,
in related registries that should have been grouped together, but
that are instead scattered about and hard to find and correlate.
Regardless of the terminology used, document authors should pay Regardless of the terminology used, document authors should pay
attention to the registry groupings, should request that related attention to the registry groupings, should request that related
registries be grouped together, and, when creating a new registry, registries be grouped together to make related registries easier to
should check whether that registry might best be included in an find, and, when creating a new registry, should check whether that
existing group. That grouping information should be clearly registry might best be included in an existing group. That grouping
communicated to IANA in the registry creation request. information should be clearly communicated to IANA in the registry
creation request.
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (serving as a repository for registered values) MUST that space (serving as a repository for registered values) must
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the
IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it. IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it.
In particular, such instructions MUST include: In particular, such instructions must include:
The name of the registry (or sub-registry) The name of the registry
This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to
in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new
space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be
provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be
easily confused with the name of another registry. easily confused with the name of another registry.
When creating a sub-registry, the registry that it is a part of When creating a registry, the group that it is a part of must be
MUST be identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in the IANA
the IANA registry list. registry list.
Providing a URL to precisely identify the registry helps IANA Providing a URL to precisely identify the registry helps IANA
understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from the RFC understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from the RFC
prior to final publication. If they are to be left in, it is prior to final publication. If they are to be left in, it is
important that they be permanent links. IANA intends to include important that they be permanent links. IANA intends to include
the permalink for each registry in the registry header. Until the permalink for each registry in the registry header. Until
that is done, IANA can answer questions about the correct URLs to that is done, IANA can answer questions about the correct URLs to
use. use.
For example, a document could contain something like this: For example, a document could contain something like this:
This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational
Parameters registry, located at <http://www.iana.org/ Parameters registry, located at <https://www.iana.org/
assignments/foobar-registry>. assignments/foobar-registry>.
It might be tempting to use the URL that appears in your web It might be tempting to use the URL that appears in your web
browser's address bar, which might look something like this for browser's address bar, which might look something like this for
the example above: the example above:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry/foobar- https://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry/foobar-
registry.xml registry.xml
...but that is not the permanent link to the registry. ...but that is not the permanent link to the registry.
Required information for registrations Required information for registrations
This tells registrants what information they have to include in
their registration requests. Some registries require only the
requested value and a reference to a document where use of the
value is defined. Other registries require a more detailed
registration template that describes relevant security
considerations, internationalization considerations, and other
such information.
This information may include the need to document relevant Applicable registration policy
Security Considerations, if any.
Applicable review process
The review process that will apply to all future requests for The policy that will apply to all future requests for
registration. See Section 2.3. registration. See Section 4.
Size, format and syntax of registry entries Size, format and syntax of registry entries
What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements
on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations
on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry
values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should
specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in
hexadecimal, or in some other format. For strings, the encoding hexadecimal, or in some other format.
format should be specified (ASCII, UTF8, etc.).
Strings are expected to be ASCII, and it should be clearly
specified whether case matters, and whether, for example, strings
should be shown in the registry in upper case or lower case.
Strings that represent protocol parameters will rarely, if ever,
need to contain non-ASCII characters. If non-ASCII characters are
really necessary, instructions should make it very clear that they
are allowed and that the non-ASCII characters should be
represented as Unicode characters using the "(U+XXXX)" convention.
Anyone creating such a registry should think carefully about this
and consider internationalization advice such as that in [RFC7564]
Section 10.
Initial assignments and reservations Initial assignments and reservations
Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In
addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use", addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use",
"Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be
indicated. indicated.
For example, a document might specify a new registry by including: For example, a document might specify a new registry by including:
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
X. IANA Considerations X. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space
[to be removed upon publication: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters]
[RFC2132] [RFC2939]: [RFC2132] [RFC2939]:
Data Data
Tag Name Length Meaning Tag Name Length Meaning
---- ---- ------ ------- ---- ---- ------ -------
TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server
The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which
IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled IANA is to create and maintain a new registry entitled
"FooType values" under the FooBar option. Initial values for the "FooType values" used by the FooBar option. Initial values for the
DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments
are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26]. are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26].
Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its
associated value. associated value.
Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition
---- ------------------------ ---------- ---- ------------------------ ----------
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Frobnitz See Section y.1 1 Frobnitz See Section y.1
2 NitzFrob See Section y.2 2 NitzFrob See Section y.2
3-254 Unassigned 3-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved 255 Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
For examples of documents that establish registries, consult For examples of documents that establish registries, consult
[RFC3575], [RFC3968], and [RFC4520]. [RFC3575], [RFC3968], and [RFC4520].
2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy 2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry
There are several issues to consider when defining the policy for the
new assignments in a registry.
If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be
made carefully to prevent exhaustion.
Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually
desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in
order to:
o prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For
example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for
example).
o provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an
essentially equivalent service already exists).
Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact
interoperability and security. See [RFC6709].
When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no
potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can
usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In
such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is
given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should
grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective
judgement.
When this is not the case, some level of review is required.
However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of
registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be
IETF participants; requests often come from other standards
organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards,
from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for
example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily
difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other
resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial.
While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered
(e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for
which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in
many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more
important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time
and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a
registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements
actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on
the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued.
In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such
as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will
come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the
working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a
new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a
Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, the
experience can serve to motivate changing to a lower bar for
registration.
Indeed, publishing any RFC is costly, and a Standards Track RFC is
especially so, requiring a great deal of community time for review
and discussion, IETF-wide last call, involvement of the entire IESG
as well as concentrated time and review from the sponsoring AD,
review and action by IANA, and RFC-Editor processing.
Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use
care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their
documents create registries. They should select the least strict
policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific
justification for policies that require significant community
involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification
Required, in terms of the well-known policies).
2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies
This document defines a number of registration policies in Section 4.
Because they benefit from both community experience and wide
understanding, their use is encouraged when appropriate.
It is also acceptable to cite one of the well-known policies and
include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should
be taken into account by the review process.
For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated
Expert should follow.
The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards
Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness
(using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):
4. First Come First Served
No review, minimal documentation.
5/6. Expert Review / Specification Required
Expert review with sufficient documentation for review. /
Significant stable public documentation sufficient for
interoperability.
7. RFC Required
Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream.
8. IETF Review
RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards
Track.
9. Standards Action
RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track only.
Examples of situations that might merit RFC Required, IETF Review, or
Standards Action include the following:
o When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two
bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases,
allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and
agreed by community consensus could too quickly deplete the
allowable values.
o When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or
modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One
example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options
that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict
policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the
latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that
change the semantics of existing operations.
The description in Section 4.10 of "IESG Approval" suggests that the
IESG "can (and should) reject a request if another path for
registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no
compelling reason not to use that path." The IESG should give
similar consideration to any registration policy more stringent than
Expert Review or Specification Required, asking for justification and
ensuring that more relaxed policies have been considered, and the
strict policy is the right one.
Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document
their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in
the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup).
Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected
policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG.
When specifications are revised, registration policies should be
reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set.
Note that the well-known policies are not exclusive; there are
situations where a different policy might be more appropriate.
2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination
In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration
policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process
might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process
would have a different policy applied.
Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy such as "RFC
Required" or "IETF Review" sometimes, with a designated expert
checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times.
The alternative to using a combination requires either that all
requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review
by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review
and consensus.
This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the
registry is created:
IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" as a
sub-registry of "Fruit Parameters". New registrations will be
permitted through either the IETF Review policy or the
Specification Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used
for registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF.
Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF
Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification
Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when
each policy is appropriate, as in the example above.
2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry
Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need
to be changed after they are created. The process of making such to be changed after they are created. The process of making such
changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make
the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream, the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream,
change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via
the IESG. The same is true for value registrations made in IETF- the IESG. The same is true for value registrations made in IETF-
stream RFCs. stream RFCs.
Because registries can be created and registrations can be made Because registries can be created and registrations can be made
outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desired to have change outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desirable to have change
control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change
control policies is always helpful. control policies is always helpful.
It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created
clearly specify a change control policy and a change controller. It clearly specify a change control policy and a change controller. It
is also advised that registries that allow registrations from outside is also advised that registries that allow registrations from outside
the IETF stream include, for each value, the designation of a change the IETF stream include, for each value, the designation of a change
controller for that value. If the definition or reference for a controller for that value. If the definition or reference for a
registered value ever needs to change, or if a registered value needs registered value ever needs to change, or if a registered value needs
to be deprecated, it is critical that IANA know who is authorized to to be deprecated, it is critical that IANA know who is authorized to
make the change. See also Section 9.5. make the change. See also Section 9.5.
While IANA normally includes information about change control in the
public registry, some change controllers might prefer that their
identities or contact information not be made public. In such cases,
arrangements can be made with IANA to keep the information private,
to use an alias or role-based contact address, or to otherwise
protect the change controller's privacy.
2.4. Revising Existing Registries 2.4. Revising Existing Registries
Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of
an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created
explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when
creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes
reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed
guidance for handling assignments in the registry, or detailed guidance for handling assignments in the registry, or detailed
instructions about the changes required. instructions about the changes required.
If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions
need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing
entries. Other changes may require similar clarity. Remember to entries. Other changes may require similar clarity.
check this, and give clear instructions to IANA.
Such documents are normally processed with the same document status Such documents are normally processed with the same document status
as the document that created the registry, or as Best Current as the document that created the registry.
Practices (BCPs) [RFC2026].
Example documents that updated the guidelines for assignments in pre- Example documents that updated the guidelines for assignments in pre-
existing registries include: [RFC6195], [RFC3228], and [RFC3575]. existing registries include: [RFC6195], [RFC3228], and [RFC3575].
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations
Often, documents request an assignment in an existing namespace (one Often, documents request an assignment in an existing registry (one
created by a previously published document). created by a previously published document).
Such documents should clearly identify the namespace into which each Such documents should clearly identify the registry into which each
value is to be registered. If the registration goes into a sub- value is to be registered. Use the exact registry name as listed on
registry, the author should clearly explain that. Use the exact the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where the registry is defined.
namespace name as listed on the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where
the namespace is defined.
There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making
new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from
the references. the references. However, if multiple assignment policies might
apply, as in registries with different ranges that have different
policies, it is important to make it clear which range is being
requested, so that IANA will know which policy applies and can assign
a value in the correct range.
When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely
identify the registry is helpful. See Section 2.2 for details on identify the registry is helpful. See Section 2.2 for details on
specifying the correct URL. specifying the correct URL.
For example, a document could contain something like this: For example, a document could contain something like this:
This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational
Parameters registry, located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ Parameters registry, located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
foobar-registry>. foobar-registry>.
Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the
document is approved, and drafts should not specify final values. document is approved, and drafts should not specify final values.
Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used
consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be
registered a different placeholder. The IANA Considerations should registered a different placeholder. The IANA Considerations should
ask the RFC Editor to replace the placeholder names with the IANA- ask the RFC Editor to replace the placeholder names with the IANA-
assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for
testing or early implementations, they will either request early testing or early implementations, they will either request early
allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set
aside for testing or experimentation. It is important that drafts aside for testing or experimentation (if the registry in question
not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those values to allows that without explicit assignment). It is important that
another document in the meantime. A draft can request a specific drafts not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those
value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will accommodate values to another document in the meantime. A draft can request a
such requests when that's possible, but the proposed number might specific value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will
have been assigned to some other use by the time the draft is accommodate such requests when that's possible, but the proposed
approved. number might have been assigned to some other use by the time the
draft is approved.
Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the
document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will
consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a
different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string
values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the
expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value
instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows
the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing
the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the
final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version
of the draft, for example. of the draft, for example.
For some registries, IANA has a long-standing policy prohibiting For some registries, IANA has a long-standing policy prohibiting
assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis. assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis.
For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there
is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document
is intended to change those policies or prevent their future is intended to change those policies or prevent their future
application. application.
The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the
document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is
generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also helpful for
this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear on
the IANA web site. For example:
Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar [[this RFC]]
Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table is
too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table in
the draft, but may include a note asking that the table be removed
prior to publication of the final RFC.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number: of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS IANA is asked to assign an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS
Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to
the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space
defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315. defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the
document as appropriate. Including section numbers is especially
useful when the reference document is large; the section numbers will
make it easier for those searching the reference document to find the
relevant information.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table of the additions/changes. It is also helpful
for this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear
on the IANA web site. For example:
Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar [[this RFC, Section 3.2]]
TBD2 Gumbo [[this RFC, Section 3.3]]
TBD3 Banana [[this RFC, Section 3.4]]
Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table of
changes is too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include
the table in the draft, but may include a note asking that the table
be removed prior to publication of the final RFC.
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations
Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations
contain additional information that may need to be updated over time. contain additional information that may need to be updated over time.
For example, MIME media types, character sets, and language tags For example, MIME media types, character sets, and language tags
typically include more information than just the registered value typically include more information than just the registered value
itself, and may need updates to items such as point-of-contact itself, and may need updates to items such as point-of-contact
information, security issues, pointers to updates, and literature information, security issues, pointers to updates, and literature
references. references.
skipping to change at page 16, line 18 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should
be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it. be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it.
IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or
intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where
policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter
issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration
requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive. requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive.
3.4. Early Allocations 3.4. Early Allocations
IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for
publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a
value is important for the development of a technology: for example, value is important for the development of a technology: for example,
when early implementations are created while the document is still when early implementations are created while the document is still
under development. under development.
IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some
cases. See [RFC7120] for details. cases. See [RFC7120] for details. It is usually not necessary to
explicitly mark a registry as allowing early allocation, because the
general rules will apply.
4. Well-Known Registration Policies 4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies
The following are some defined policies, most of which are in use A registration policy is the policy that controls how new assignments
today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used in a registry are accepted. There are several issues to consider
to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a namespace. when defining the registration policy.
It is not strictly required that documents use these terms; the
actual requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be
unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly RECOMMENDED, made carefully to prevent exhaustion.
because their meanings are widely understood. The terms are fully
explained in the following subsections. Even when the space is essentially unlimited, it is still often
desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in
order to:
o prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For
example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for
example).
o provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an
essentially equivalent service already exists).
Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact
interoperability and security. See [RFC6709].
When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no
potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can
usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In
such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is
given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should
grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective
judgement.
When this is not the case, some level of review is required.
However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of
registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be
IETF participants; requests often come from other standards
organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards,
from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for
example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily
difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other
resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial.
While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered
(e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for
which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in
many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more
important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time
and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a
registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements
actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on
the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued.
Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use
care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their
documents create registries. They should select the least strict
policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific
justification for policies that require significant community
involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification
Required, in terms of the well-known policies).
The following policies are defined for common usage. These cover a
range of typical policies that have been used to describe the
procedures for assigning new values in a namespace. It is not
strictly required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and
unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly recommended
because their meanings are widely understood, and newly minted
policies should not be used without good reason and explanation. The
terms are fully explained in the following subsections.
1. Private Use 1. Private Use
2. Experimental Use 2. Experimental Use
3. Hierarchical Allocation 3. Hierarchical Allocation
4. First Come First Served 4. First Come First Served
5. Expert Review 5. Expert Review
6. Specification Required 6. Specification Required
7. RFC Required 7. RFC Required
8. IETF Review 8. IETF Review
9. Standards Action 9. Standards Action
skipping to change at page 17, line 16 skipping to change at page 15, line 16
into multiple categories, with assignments within each category into multiple categories, with assignments within each category
handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into
two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or
Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique
assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a
namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in
place for different ranges and different use cases. place for different ranges and different use cases.
Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in
parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances. parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances.
For more discussion of that topic, see Section 2.3.2. For more discussion of that topic, see Section 4.12.
Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel: Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel:
LDAP [RFC4520] LDAP [RFC4520]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in
the subsections below) the subsections below)
Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) [RFC4446] MPLS Pseudowire Types Registry [RFC4446]
4.1. Private Use 4.1. Private Use
For private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by 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 the local site. No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from
using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. There is using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. IANA does
no need for IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not not record assignments from registries or ranges with this policy
record them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and
interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability. It
of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within is the responsibility of the sites making use of the Private Use
the intended scope of use). range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within the intended scope of
use).
Examples: Examples:
Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939] Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939]
Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044] Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246] TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246]
4.2. Experimental Use 4.2. Experimental Use
Experimental Use is similar to Private Use only, but with the purpose Experimental Use is similar to Private Use, but with the purpose
being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details. being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details.
IANA does not record assignments from registries or ranges with this
policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and
assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability.
Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is not appropriate for
documents to select explicit values from registries or ranges with
this policy. Specific experiments will select a value to use during
the experiment.
Example: Example:
Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP
Headers [RFC4727] Headers [RFC4727]
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation
With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given
control over part of the namespace, and can assign values in that control over part of the namespace, and can assign values in that
part of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels part of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels
of the namespace according to one of the other policies. of the namespace according to one of the other policies.
Examples: Examples:
DNS names - DNS names. IANA manages the top-level domains (TLDs), and, as
Object Identifiers [RFC1591] says:
IP addresses
Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally,
under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is,
many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and
any further structure is up to the individual organizations.
- Object Identifiers, defined by ITU-T recommendation X.208.
According to <http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/>, some registries
include
* IANA, which hands out OIDs the "Private Enterprises" branch,
* ANSI, which hands out OIDs under the "US Organizations" branch,
and
* BSI, which hands out OIDs under the "UK Organizations" branch.
- URN namespaces. IANA registers URN Namespace IDs (NIDs [RFC3406]),
and the organization registering an NID is responsible for
allocations of URNs within that namespace.
4.4. First Come First Served 4.4. First Come First Served
For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to
anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive
review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed
and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must
include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of
contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address) contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address)
and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional
information specific to the type of value requested may also need to information specific to the type of value requested may also need to
be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, the exact be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, the exact
value is generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text value is generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text
strings can usually be requested. strings can usually be requested.
When creating a new registry with First Come First Served as the When creating a new registry with First Come First Served as the
registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or
reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller. reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller.
Having a change controller for each entry for these types of Having a change controller for each entry for these types of
registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear. registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear.
See Section 2.3.3. It is important that changes to the registration See Section 2.3. It is important that changes to the registration of
of a First Come First Served code point retain compatibility with the a First Come First Served code point retain compatibility with the
current usage of that code point, and so changes need to be made with current usage of that code point, and so changes need to be made with
care. care.
It is also important to understand that First Come First Served It is also important to understand that First Come First Served
really has no filtering. Essentially, any request is accepted. A really has no filtering. Essentially, any well formed request is
working group or any other entity that is developing protocol based accepted.
on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely careful
that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use of the A working group or any other entity that is developing a protocol
code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs to based on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely
change to a different code point (and register that use at the careful that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use
of the code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs
to change to a different code point (and register that use at the
appropriate time). appropriate time).
Examples: Examples:
SASL mechanism names [RFC4422] SASL mechanism names [RFC4422]
LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520] LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520]
4.5. Expert Review 4.5. Expert Review
(Also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of this (Also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of this
document.) For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a document.) For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a
designated expert (see Section 5) is required. The required designated expert (see Section 5) is required.
documentation and review criteria for use by the designated expert
should be provided when defining the registry. For example, see
Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748].
It is particularly important, when using a designated expert, to give The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
clear guidance to the expert, laying out criteria for performing an to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the
evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. When specifying a registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be
policy that involves a designated expert, the IANA Considerations considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a
SHOULD contain such guidance. It is also a good idea to include, request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense
when possible, a sense of whether many registrations are expected of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the
over time, or if the registry is expected to be updated infrequently registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional
or in exceptional circumstances only. circumstances only.
Good examples of guidance to designated experts:
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748], Sections 6 and
7.2
North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using
BGP [RFC7752], Section 5.1
When creating a new registry with Expert Review as the registration When creating a new registry with Expert Review as the registration
policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the
registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a
change controller for each entry for these types of registrations change controller for each entry for these types of registrations
makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section
2.3.3 2.3
Examples: Examples:
EAP Method Types [RFC3748] EAP Method Types [RFC3748]
HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169] HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169]
URI schemes [RFC4395] URI schemes [RFC4395]
GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589] GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]
4.6. Specification Required 4.6. Specification Required
For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
available public specification, in sufficient detail so that available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is possible. interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
The designated expert will review the public specification and The designated expert will review the public specification and
evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow interoperable evaluate whether it is sufficiently stable and permanent, and
implementations. The intention behind "permanent and readily sufficiently clear to allow interoperable implementations.
available" is that a document can reasonably be expected to be
findable and retrievable long after IANA assignment of the requested The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a
value. Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable
requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also cover the long after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an
case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For RFC RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but
publication, the normal RFC review process is expected to provide the Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a
necessary review for interoperability, though the designated expert document published outside of the RFC path, including informal
may be a particularly well-qualified person to perform such a review. documentation.
For RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected to
provide the necessary review for interoperability, though the
designated expert may be a particularly well-qualified person to
perform such a review.
As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
expert, should be provided when defining the registry.
When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification
Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert
Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion. Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion.
Examples: Examples:
Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers
[RFC4124] [RFC4124]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246] TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246]
ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795] ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795]
4.7. RFC Required 4.7. RFC Required
With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with
associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need
not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an
RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, or IAB stream, or an RFC Editor RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, or IAB stream, or an RFC Editor
Independent Submission [RFC5742]). Unless otherwise specified, any Independent Submission [RFC5742]).
type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic). Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently
Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
4.8. IETF Review 4.8. IETF Review
(Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this
document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only
through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded
through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group Documents through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group Documents
[RFC2026] [RFC5378]. [RFC2026] [RFC5378], have gone through IETF last call, and that the
IESG has approved as having IETF consensus.
The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be
reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working
groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure
that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect
interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an
inappropriate or damaging manner. To ensure adequate community inappropriate or damaging manner. To ensure adequate community
review, such documents will always undergo an IETF Last Call. review, such documents will always undergo an IETF Last Call.
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently
Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
Examples: Examples:
IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025] IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025]
Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005] Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005]
TLS Extension Types [RFC5246] TLS Extension Types [RFC5246]
4.9. Standards Action 4.9. Standards Action
For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through
Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs approved by the IESG.
Examples: Examples:
BGP message types [RFC4271] BGP message types [RFC4271]
Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283] Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246] TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246]
DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340] DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340]
4.10. IESG Approval 4.10. IESG Approval
New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no
requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has
discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a
case-by-case basis. case-by-case basis.
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case"; IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case";
indeed, it has seldom been used in practice during the period RFC indeed, it has seldom been used in practice. Rather, it is intended
2434 was in effect. Rather, it is intended to be available in to be available in conjunction with other policies as a fall-back
conjunction with other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval
where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be mechanisms cannot be employed in a timely fashion or for some other
employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. compelling reason. IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the
IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review public review processes implied by other policies that could have
processes implied by other policies that could have been employed for been employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be
a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be appropriate, appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is desired and there
however, in cases where expediency is desired and there is strong is strong consensus (such as from a working group) for making the
consensus (such as from a working group) for making the assignment. assignment.
The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation under IESG
Approval:
o The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another path for
registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no
compelling reason not to use that path.
o Before approving a request, the community should be consulted, via Before approving a request, the IESG might consider consulting the
a "call for comments" that provides as much information as is community, via a "call for comments" that provides as much
reasonably possible about the request. information as is reasonably possible about the request.
Examples: Examples:
IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771] IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771]
IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228] IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228]
Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275] Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275]
5. Designated Experts 4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts Because the well-known policies benefit from both community
experience and wide understanding, their use is encouraged, and the
making up of new policies needs to be accompanied by reasonable
justification.
IANA does not define registry policy itself; rather, it carries out It is also acceptable to cite one of the well-known policies and
policies that have been defined by others and published in RFCs. As include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should
part of that process, review of proposed registrations is often be taken into account by the review process.
appropriate.
A common way to ensure such review is for a proposed registration to For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
be published as an RFC, as this ensures that the specification is Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated
publicly and permanently available. It is particularly important if Expert should follow.
any potential interoperability issues might arise. For example, some
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 The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards
register a protocol element is excessive. Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness
(using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):
However, it is generally still useful (and sometimes necessary) to 4. First Come First Served
discuss proposed registrations within the community, on a mailing No review, minimal documentation.
list. Such a mailing list provides opportunity for public review
prior to assignment, and allows for a consultative process when
registrants want help in understanding what a proper registration
should contain.
While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical 5/6. Expert Review / Specification Required
feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some Expert review with sufficient documentation for review. /
time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate Significant stable public documentation sufficient for
in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such interoperability.
7. RFC Required
Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream.
8. IETF Review
RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards
Track.
9. Standards Action
RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track only.
Examples of situations that might merit IETF Review or Standards
Action include the following:
o When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two
bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases,
allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and
agreed by community consensus could too quickly deplete the
allowable values.
o When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or
modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One
example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options
that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict
policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the
latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that
change the semantics of existing operations.
When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or
change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert
Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for
justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been
considered and that the strict policy is the right one.
Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document
their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in
the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup).
Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected
policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG.
When specifications are revised, registration policies should be
reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set.
4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination
In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration
policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process
might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process
would have a different policy applied.
Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy such as "RFC
Required" or "IETF Review" sometimes, with a designated expert
checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times.
The alternative to using a combination requires either that all
requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review
by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review
and consensus.
This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the
registry is created:
IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" under
the "Fruit Parameters" group. New registrations will be permitted
through either the IETF Review policy or the Specification
Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used only for
registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. Registrations
requested in IETF documents will be subject to IETF review.
Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF
Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification
Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when
each policy is appropriate, as in the example above.
5. Designated Experts
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts
Discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical feedback,
but opinions often vary and discussions may continue for some time
without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate in
all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such
discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated
expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an
assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual
who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and
returning a recommendation to IANA. returning a recommendation to IANA.
It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated
experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert
to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards
requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the
expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether
or not to make the assignment or registration. or not to make the assignment or registration. In most cases, the
registrants do not work directly with the designated experts. The
list of designated experts for a registry is listed in the registry.
It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the
time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of
that topic, see Section 2.3.2. that topic, see Section 4.12.
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert
The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate
review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow, review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow,
depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert. depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert.
This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts, This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts,
discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working
group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc. group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc.
Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as
skipping to change at page 23, line 14 skipping to change at page 23, line 26
the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for
specific examples. specific examples.
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions
to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to
be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are
expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures,
or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted
norms such as those in Section 5.3. norms such as those in Section 5.3.
In registries where a pool of experts evaluates requests, the pool It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some
should have a single chair responsible for defining how requests are registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a
to be assigned to and reviewed by experts. In some cases, the expert request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups,
pool may consist of a primary and backups, with the backups involved acting only when the primary expert is unavailable. In registries
only when the primary expert is unavailable. In other cases, IANA with a pool of experts, the pool often has a single chair responsible
might assign requests to individual members in sequential or for defining how requests are to be assigned to and reviewed by
approximate random order. In the event that IANA finds itself having experts. In other cases, IANA might assign requests to individual
received conflicting advice from its experts, it is the members in sequential or approximate random order.
responsibility of the pool's chair to resolve the issue and provide
IANA with clear instructions. In cases of disagreement among multiple experts, it is the
responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation
to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among
experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating
body may need to step in to resolve the problem.
If a designated expert is conflicted for a particular review (is, for If a designated expert is conflicted for a particular review (is, for
example, an author or significant proponent of a specification example, an author or significant proponent of a specification
related to the registration under review), that expert should recuse related to the registration under review), that expert should recuse
himself. In the event that all the designated experts are himself. In the event that all the designated experts are
conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated for conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated for
the conflicted review. the conflicted review.
It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some
registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a
request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups.
In cases of disagreement among those experts, it is the
responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation
to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among
experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating
body may need to step in to resolve the problem.
This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to
documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may
use a registration policy that requires a designated expert only if use a registration policy that requires a designated expert only if
those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are
appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by
the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream. the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream.
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF
Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed
by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area
Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or
updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when
the first registration request is received. Because experts the first registration request is received. Because experts
originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will
appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any
designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion. designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion.
The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1, The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1,
skipping to change at page 24, line 47 skipping to change at page 24, line 54
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert
must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole.
When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear
guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing
an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where
there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be
that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling
reason to the contrary. Possible reasons to deny a request include reason to the contrary. Reasons that have been used to deny requests
these: have included these:
o Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points o Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points
should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number
of code points is made and a single code point is the norm. of code points is made and a single code point is the norm.
o Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure o Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure
interoperability. interoperability.
o The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the o The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the
extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally
skipping to change at page 25, line 31 skipping to change at page 25, line 30
type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed
systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar
result), etc. result), etc.
o The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. o The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
o The extension would conflict with one under active development by o The extension would conflict with one under active development by
the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster
interoperability. interoperability.
When a designated expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the When a designated expert is used, documents must not name the
designated expert in the document itself; instead, any suggested designated expert in the document itself; instead, any suggested
names should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time names should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time
the document is sent to the IESG for approval. This is usually done the document is sent to the IESG for approval. This is usually done
in the document shepherd writeup. in the document shepherd writeup.
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing
list, its address should be specified. list, its address should be specified.
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle
Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular
point in time, and represents review of a particular version of the point in time, and represents review of a particular version of the
document. Deciding when the review should take place is a question document. While reviews are generally done around the time of IETF
last call, deciding when the review should take place is a question
of good judgment. And while re-reviews might be done when it's of good judgment. And while re-reviews might be done when it's
acknowledged that the documentation of the registered item has acknowledged that the documentation of the registered item has
changed substantially, making sure that re-review happens requires changed substantially, making sure that re-review happens requires
attention and care. attention and care.
It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or
even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the
designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document
were re-reviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration. were re-reviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration.
It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area
Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such
changes need to be checked. changes need to be checked.
For registrations made from documents on the Standards Track, there
is often expert review required (by the registration policy) in
addition to IETF consensus (for approval as a Standards Track RFC).
In such cases, the review by the designated expert needs to be
timely, submitted before the IESG evaluates the document. The IESG
should generally not hold the document up waiting for late review.
It is also not intended for the expert review to override IETF
consensus: the IESG should consider the review in its own evaluation,
as it would do for other last-call reviews.
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology
The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of
assignments: assignments:
Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in
Section 4.1. Section 4.1.
Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described
in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for
skipping to change at page 26, line 47 skipping to change at page 27, line 4
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries
Usually, registries and registry entries include references to Usually, registries and registry entries include references to
documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these
references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details
necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document
created the registry or entry. Therefore: created the registry or entry. Therefore:
o If a document registers an item that is defined and explained o If a document registers an item that is defined and explained
elsewhere, the registered reference should be to that document, elsewhere, the registered reference should be to the document
and not to the document that is merely performing the containing the definition, not to the document that is merely
registration. performing the registration.
o If the registered item is defined and explained in the current o If the registered item is defined and explained in the current
document, it is important to include sufficient information to document, it is important to include sufficient information to
enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper
implementation. implementation.
o If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific o If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific
section of the reference document, it is useful to include a section of the reference document, it is useful to include a
section reference. For example, "[RFC9876], Section 3.2", rather section reference. For example, "[RFC9876], Section 3.2", rather
than just "[RFC9876]". than just "[RFC9876]".
o For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide o For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide
information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the
creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the
registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the
process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new
registrants or designated experts, and other such related registrants or designated experts, and other such related
information. But note that, while it's important to include this information. But note that, while it's important to include this
information in the document, it needn't (and shouldn't) all be in information in the document, it needn't all be in the IANA
the IANA Considerations section. See Section 1.1. Considerations section. See Section 1.1.
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents
On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of
the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as
when RFC 9876 is updated by draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis. When the when RFC 9876 is obsoleted by draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis. When the
original document created registries and/or registered entries, there original document created registries and/or registered entries, there
is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section in the is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section in the
"bis" document. "bis" document.
If the registrations specify the original document as a reference, If the registrations specify the original document as a reference,
those registrations should be updated to point to the current (not those registrations should be updated to point to the current (not
obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that will mean obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that will mean
changing the reference to be the "bis" document. There will, though, changing the reference to be the "bis" document.
be times when a document updates another, and changes the definitive
reference for some items, but not for others. Be sure that the There will, though, be times when a document updates another, but
references are always set to point to the correct, current does not make it obsolete, and the definitive reference is changed
documentation for each item. for some items but not for others. Be sure that the references are
always set to point to the correct, current documentation for each
item.
For example, suppose RFC 9876 registered the "BANANA" flag in the For example, suppose RFC 9876 registered the "BANANA" flag in the
"Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is "Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is
in Section 3.2. in Section 3.2.
The current registry might look, in part, like this: The current registry might look, in part, like this:
Name Description Reference Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- --------- -------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC9876], Section 3.2 BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC9876], Section 3.2
skipping to change at page 28, line 38 skipping to change at page 28, line 44
9. Miscellaneous Issues 9. Miscellaneous Issues
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 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 know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In
order to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and 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 that the author has consciously made such a determination), such
documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: documents should, after the authors confirm that this is the case,
include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
This statement, or an equivalent, must only be inserted after the
working group or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be
true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without
careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA
actions being performed.
If a specification makes use of values from a namespace in which
assignments are not made by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact,
with wording such as this:
The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo
registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document
has no IANA actions.
IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left
in the document for the record. This is a change from the prior in the document for the record: it makes it clear later on that the
practice of requesting that such sections be removed by the RFC document explicitly said that no IANA actions were needed (and that
Editor, and authors are asked to accommodate this change. it wasn't just omitted). This is a change from the prior practice of
requesting that such sections be removed by the RFC Editor, and
authors are asked to accommodate this change.
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment
policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide
what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always
be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through
the IESG when appropriate. the IESG when appropriate.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to
register or otherwise administer namespace assignments MUST provide register or otherwise administer namespace assignments must provide
guidelines for administration of the namespace. guidelines for administration of the namespace.
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations
Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a
namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is
being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The
IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described
in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In the absence of in this document need to be applied to such cases. In the absence of
specifications to the contrary, values may only be reassigned for a specifications to the contrary, values may only be reassigned for a
different purpose with the consent of the original assignee (when different purpose with the consent of the original assignee (when
possible) and with due consideration of the impact of such a possible) and with due consideration of the impact of such a
reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation with the reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation with the
IESG is advised. IESG is advised.
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values
Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because
doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems
skipping to change at page 31, line 6 skipping to change at page 30, line 53
will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be
valid and registrations already in the registry can still be updated. valid and registrations already in the registry can still be updated.
A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication
that the information in the registry is no longer in current use. that the information in the registry is no longer in current use.
Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer
in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended). in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended).
Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to
normal change controls (see Section 2.3.3). Any closure, normal change controls (see Section 2.3). Any closure, obsolescence,
obsolescence, or deprecation serves to annotate the registry or deprecation serves to annotate the registry involved; the
involved; the information in the registry remains there for information in the registry remains there for informational and
informational and historic purposes. historic purposes.
10. Appeals 10. Appeals
Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made
using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026], using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026],
Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the
IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB.
11. Mailing Lists 11. Mailing Lists
skipping to change at page 31, line 41 skipping to change at page 31, line 35
Designated Experts, and mail list participants, too. Designated Experts, and mail list participants, too.
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities
related to how an assigned number is used may change as well. As new related to how an assigned number is used may change as well. As new
vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such
vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations, so vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations, so
that users are not misled as to the true security issues surrounding that users are not misled as to the true security issues surrounding
the use of a registered number. the use of a registered number.
Security needs to be considered as part of the selection of a
registration policy. For some protocols, registration of certain
parameters will have security implications, and registration policies
for the relevant registries must ensure that requests get appropriate
review with those security implications in mind.
An analysis of security issues is generally required for all An analysis of security issues is generally required for all
protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes,
keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such
security considerations are usually included in the protocol document security considerations are usually included in the protocol document
[RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations
associated with a particular registry to specify what (if any) associated with a particular registry to specify whether value-
security considerations must be provided when assigning new values, specific security considerations must be provided when assigning new
and the process for reviewing such claims. values, and the process for reviewing such claims.
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
In accordance with Section 9.1: In accordance with Section 9.1:
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26
14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226
Significant additions: Significant additions:
o Removed RFC 2119 key words, boilerplate, and reference, preferring
plain English -- this is not a protocol specification.
o Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA o Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA
o Added Section 1.2, For More Information o Added Section 1.2, For More Information
o Added Section 2.1, Hierarchical Registry Structure o Added Section 2.1, Hierarchical Registry Structure
o Added Section 2.3, Best Practice for Selecting an Appropriate o Added best practice for selecting an appropriate policy into
Policy. Section 4.
o Added Section 2.3.2, Using Multiple Policies in Combination. o Added Section 4.12, Using Multiple Policies in Combination.
o Added Section 2.3.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry o Added Section 2.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry
o Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations o Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations
o Moved well-known policies into a separate section for each, o Moved well-known policies into a separate section for each,
subsections of Section 4. subsections of Section 4.
o Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle o Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle
o Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries o Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries
skipping to change at page 34, line 37 skipping to change at page 34, line 40
document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
borrowed from [RFC4288]. borrowed from [RFC4288].
16. References 16. References
16.1. Normative References 16.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
16.2. Informative References 16.2. Informative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981. 1981.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, DOI 10.17487/RFC1591, March 1994, <http://www
.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition [RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition
of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group [RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, February Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, February
2002. 2002.
[RFC3406] Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R. and P. Faltstrom,
"Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition
Mechanisms", BCP 66, RFC 3406, DOI 10.17487/RFC3406,
October 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3406>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
2003. 2003.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote [RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July
2003. 2003.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
skipping to change at page 37, line 5 skipping to change at page 37, line 12
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
September 2012. September 2012.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014.
[RFC7564] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols", RFC
7564, DOI 10.17487/RFC7564, May 2015, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A. and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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
US US
Phone: +1 310 823 9358 Phone: +1 310 823 9358
Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org
URI: http://www.icann.org/ URI: https://www.icann.org/
Barry Leiba Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Phone: +1 646 827 0648 Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
Thomas Narten Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
 End of changes. 109 change blocks. 
511 lines changed or deleted 530 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/