< draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18.txt   draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.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: March 24, 2017 IBM Corporation Expires: July 12, 2017 IBM Corporation
September 22, 2016 January 10, 2017
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19
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
record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services.
To make assignments in a given registry prudently, IANA needs To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance is needed
guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be for 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 provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and
that are likely in the operation of a registry. addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a
registry.
This is the third edition of this document; it 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 March 24, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 Services . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. For Updated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. For Updated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 10 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies . . . 14 4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies . . . 14
4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . 22 4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . 22
4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 25 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 26
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 27 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 28
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Documentation References in Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.1. When There Are No Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations . . . . . . 33 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations . . . . . . 33
10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 34 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 35
14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 34 14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 35
14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 35 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 36
15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2016) . . . . . . . . 36 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2016) . . . . . . . . 37
15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 36 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 37
15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 37 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 37
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
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
record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860]. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services [RFC2860].
The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types
[RFC6838] are two examples of such coordinations. [RFC6838] 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
registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used
interchangably throughout this document. interchangably throughout this document.
To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, guidance is
guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be needed for 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 for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the
that are likely in the operation of a registry. various issues 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 Services
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 Services. Technical documentation should
other parts of the document, and should be included by reference reside in other parts of the document, and should be included by
only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical reference only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary
documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document technical documentation both hides it from the target audience of the
and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take. document and interferes with IANA Services' review of the actions
they need to take.
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 action; includes all information needed, such as the
as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear 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.
The IANA actions are normally phrased as requests for IANA (such as, The actions are normally phrased as requests for IANA Services (such
"IANA is asked to assign the value TBD1 from the Frobozz as, "IANA Services is asked to assign the value TBD1 from the Frobozz
Registry..."); the RFC Editor will change those sentences to reflect Registry..."); the RFC Editor will change those sentences to reflect
the actions taken ("IANA has assigned the value 83 from the Frobozz the actions taken ("IANA Services has assigned the value 83 from the
Registry..."). Frobozz Registry...").
1.2. For Updated Information 1.2. For Updated Information
IANA maintains a web page that includes additional clarification IANA Services maintains a web page that includes additional
information, beyond what is provided here, such as minor updates and clarification information, beyond what is provided here, such as
summary guidance. Document authors should check that page. Any minor updates and summary guidance. Document authors should check
significant updates to the best current practice will have to feed that page. Any significant updates to the best current practice will
into updates to BCP 26 (this document), which is definitive. have to feed into updates to BCP 26 (this document), which is
definitive.
<https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>. <https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>.
[[(RFC Editor: Please remove this paragraph.) The initial version of [[(RFC Editor: Please remove this paragraph.) The initial version of
this should contain the bits that are salient to most document this should contain the bits that are salient to most document
authors -- perhaps a table of required elements to create a new authors -- perhaps a table of required elements to create a new
registry or update one, a bit about sub-registries, and the listing registry or update one, a bit about sub-registries, and the listing
of well-known registration policies. IANA has text for this, but of well-known registration policies. IANA has text for this, but
they need to work on their process to put the page up (transition they need to work on their process to put the page up (transition
issues). ]] issues). ]]
1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front 1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front
It's useful to be familiar with this document as a whole. But when It's useful to be familiar with this document as a whole. But when
you return for quick reference, here are checklists for the most you return for quick reference, here are checklists for the most
common things you'll need to do, and references to help with the less common things you'll need to do, and references to help with the less
common ones. common ones.
In general... In general...
1. Put all the information that IANA will need to know into the 1. Put all the information that IANA Services will need to know into
"IANA Considerations" section of your document (see Section 1.1). the "IANA Considerations" section of your document (see Section
1.1).
2. Try to keep that section only for information to IANA and to 2. Try to keep that section only for information to IANA Services
designated expert reviewers, and put significant technical and to designated expert reviewers, and put significant technical
information in the appropriate technical sections of the document information in the appropriate technical sections of the document
(see Section 1.1). (see Section 1.1).
3. Note that the IESG has the authority to resolve issues with IANA 3. Note that the IESG has the authority to resolve issues with
registrations, and if you have any questions or problems you registrations, and if you have any questions or problems you
should consult your document shepherd and/or working group chair, should consult your document shepherd and/or working group chair,
who may ultimately involve an Area Director (see Section 3.3). who may ultimately involve an Area Director (see Section 3.3).
If you are creating a new registry... If you are creating a new registry...
1. Give the registry a descriptive name, and provide a brief 1. Give the registry a descriptive name, and provide a brief
description of its use (see Section 2.2). description of its use (see Section 2.2).
2. Identify any registry grouping that it should be part of (see 2. Identify any registry grouping that it should be part of (see
Section 2.1). Section 2.1).
3. Clearly specify what information is required in order to register 3. Clearly specify what information is required in order to register
new items (see Section 2.2). Be sure to specify data types, new items (see Section 2.2). Be sure to specify data types,
lengths, and valid ranges for fields. lengths, and valid ranges for fields.
4. Specify the initial set of items for the registry, if applicable 4. Specify the initial set of items for the registry, if applicable
(see Section 2.2). (see Section 2.2).
5. Make sure it's clear to IANA what the change control policy is 5. Make sure it's clear to IANA Services what the change control
for the registry, in case changes to the format or policies need policy is for the registry, in case changes to the format or
to be made later (see Section 2.3 and Section 9.5). policies need to be made later (see Section 2.3 and Section 9.5).
6. Select a registration policy -- or a set of policies -- to use 6. Select a registration policy -- or a set of policies -- to use
for future registrations (see Section 4, and especially note for future registrations (see Section 4, and especially note
Section 4.11 and Section 4.12). Section 4.11 and Section 4.12).
7. If you're using a policy that requires a Designated Expert 7. If you're using a policy that requires a Designated Expert
(Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5 (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5
Section 5, and provide review guidance to the Designated Expert Section 5, and provide review guidance to the Designated Expert
(see Section 5.3). (see Section 5.3).
skipping to change at page 6, line 6 skipping to change at page 6, line 6
If you are registering into an existing registry... If you are registering into an existing registry...
1. Clearly identify the registry by its exact name, and optionally 1. Clearly identify the registry by its exact name, and optionally
by its URL (see Section 3.1). by its URL (see Section 3.1).
2. If the registry has multiple ranges from which assignments can be 2. If the registry has multiple ranges from which assignments can be
made, make it clear which range is requested (see Section 3.1). made, make it clear which range is requested (see Section 3.1).
3. Avoid using specific values for numeric or bit assignments, and 3. Avoid using specific values for numeric or bit assignments, and
let IANA pick a suitable value at registration time (see Section let IANA Services pick a suitable value at registration time (see
3.1). This will avoid registration conflicts among multiple Section 3.1). This will avoid registration conflicts among
documents. multiple documents.
4. For "reference" fields, use the document that provides the best, 4. For "reference" fields, use the document that provides the best,
most current documentation for the item being registered, and most current documentation for the item being registered, and
include section numbers to make it easier for readers to locate include section numbers to make it easier for readers to locate
the relevant documentation (see Section 3.1 and Section 7). the relevant documentation (see Section 3.1 and Section 7).
5. Look up (in the registry's reference document) what information 5. Look up (in the registry's reference document) what information
is required for the registry and accurately provide all the is required for the registry and accurately provide all the
necessary information (see Section 3.1). necessary information (see Section 3.1).
6. Look up (in the registry's reference document) any special rules 6. Look up (in the registry's reference document) any special rules
or processes there may be for the registry, such as posting to a or processes there may be for the registry, such as posting to a
particular mailing list for comment, and be sure to follow the particular mailing list for comment, and be sure to follow the
process (see Section 3.1). process (see Section 3.1).
7. If the registration policy for the registry does not already 7. If the registration policy for the registry does not already
dictate the change control policy, make sure it's clear to IANA dictate the change control policy, make sure it's clear what the
what the change control policy is for the item, in case changes change control policy is for the item, in case changes to the
to the registration need to be made later (see Section 9.5). registration need to be made later (see Section 9.5).
If you're writing a "bis" document or otherwise making older If you're writing a "bis" document or otherwise making older
documents obsolete, see Section 8. documents obsolete, see Section 8.
If you need to make an early registration, such as for supporting If you need to make an early registration, such as for supporting
test implementations during document development, rather than waiting test implementations during document development, rather than waiting
for your document to be finished and approved, see [RFC7120]. for your document to be finished and approved, see [RFC7120].
If you need to change the format/contents or policies for an existing If you need to change the format/contents or policies for an existing
registry, see Section 2.4. registry, see Section 2.4.
skipping to change at page 6, line 54 skipping to change at page 6, line 54
2. Creating and Revising Registries 2. Creating and Revising Registries
Defining a registry involves describing the namespaces to be created, Defining a registry involves describing the namespaces to be created,
listing an initial set of assignments (if applicable), 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.
When defining a registry, consider structuring the namespace in such When defining a registry, consider structuring the namespace in such
a way that only top-level assignments need to be made with central a way that only top-level assignments need to be made with central
coordination, and those assignments can delegate lower-level coordination, and those assignments can delegate lower-level
assignments so coordination for them can be distributed. This assignments so coordination for them can be distributed. This
lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments, and is lessens the burden on IANA Services for dealing with assignments, and
particularly useful in situations where distributed coordinators have is particularly useful in situations where distributed coordinators
better knowledge of their portion of the namespace and are better have better knowledge of their portion of the namespace and are
suited to handling those assignments. better suited to handling those assignments.
2.1. Organization of Registries 2.1. Organization of Registries
All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page: All registries are anchored from the "Protocol Registries" page:
<https://www.iana.org/protocols>. <https://www.iana.org/protocols>.
That page lists registries in protocol category groups, placing That page lists registries in protocol category groups, placing
related registries together and making it easier for users of the related registries together and making it easier for users of the
registries to find the necessary information. Clicking on the title registries to find the necessary information. Clicking on the title
of one of the registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page will of one of the registries on the Protocol Registries page will take
take the reader to the details page for that registry. the reader to the details page for that registry.
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". been called "registries" or "sub-registries".
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 to make related registries easier to registries be grouped together to make related registries easier to
find, and, when creating a new registry, should check whether that find, and, when creating a new registry, should check whether that
registry might best be included in an existing group. That grouping registry might best be included in an existing group. That grouping
information should be clearly communicated to IANA in the registry information should be clearly communicated to IANA Services in the
creation request. 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 Services to play a role in
that space (serving as a repository for registered values) must maintaining that space (serving as a repository for registered
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the values) must provide clear instructions on details of the namespace,
IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it. either in the IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it.
In particular, such instructions must include: In particular, such instructions must include:
The name of the 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 Services web page and will be
in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new referred to in future documents that need to allocate a value from
space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be the new space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate)
provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be should be provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name
easily confused with the name of another registry. not be easily confused with the name of another registry.
When creating a registry, the group that it is a part of must be When creating a registry, the group that it is a part of must be
identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in the IANA identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in the
registry list. Protocol Registries 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 Services understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from
prior to final publication, or left in the document for reference. the RFC prior to final publication, or left in the document for
If you include IANA URLs, IANA will provide corrections, if reference. If you include iana.org URLs, IANA Services will
necessary, during their review. provide corrections, if necessary, during their review.
Required information for registrations Required information for registrations
This tells registrants what information they have to include in This tells registrants what information they have to include in
their registration requests. Some registries require only the their registration requests. Some registries require only the
requested value and a reference to a document where use of the requested value and a reference to a document where use of the
value is defined. Other registries require a more detailed value is defined. Other registries require a more detailed
registration template that describes relevant security registration template that describes relevant security
considerations, internationalization considerations, and other considerations, internationalization considerations, and other
such information. such information.
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
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
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters> <https://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 registry entitled IANA Services is to create and maintain a new registry entitled
"FooType values" used by 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 RFCXXXX, Section y.1 1 Frobnitz RFCXXXX, Section y.1
2 NitzFrob RFCXXXX, Section y.2 2 NitzFrob RFCXXXX, 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].
Any time IANA includes names and contact information in the public Any time IANA Services includes names and contact information in the
registry, some individuals might prefer that their contact public registry, some individuals might prefer that their contact
information not be made public. In such cases, arrangements can be information not be made public. In such cases, arrangements can be
made with IANA to keep the contact information private. made with IANA Services to keep the contact information private.
2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry 2.3. 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.
skipping to change at page 10, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desirable 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 Services know who is
make the change. Example: the Media Types registry [RFC6838] authorized to make the change. Example: the Media Types registry
includes a "Change Controller" in its registration template. See [RFC6838] includes a "Change Controller" in its registration
also Section 9.5. template. See also Section 9.5.
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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 7
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 registry (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 registry into which each Such documents should clearly identify the registry into which each
value is to be registered. Use the exact registry name as listed on value is to be registered. Use the exact registry name as listed on
the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where the registry is defined. the iana.org page, and cite the RFC where the registry is defined.
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). identify the registry is helpful (see Section 2.2).
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. However, if multiple assignment policies might the references. However, if multiple assignment policies might
apply, as in registries with different ranges that have different apply, as in registries with different ranges that have different
policies, it is important to make it clear which range is being policies, it is important to make it clear which range is being
requested, so that IANA will know which policy applies and can assign requested, so that IANA Services will know which policy applies and
a value in the correct range. can assign a value in the correct range.
Be sure to provide all the information required for a registration, Be sure to provide all the information required for a registration,
and follow any special processes that are set out for the registry. and follow any special processes that are set out for the registry.
Registries sometimes require the completion of a registration Registries sometimes require the completion of a registration
template for registration, or ask registrants to post their request template for registration, or ask registrants to post their request
to a particular mailing list for discussion prior to registration. to a particular mailing list for discussion prior to registration.
Look up the registry's reference document: the required information Look up the registry's reference document: the required information
and special processes should be documented there. and special processes should be documented there.
Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA Services when
document is approved, and drafts should not specify final values. the 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 assigned
assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for testing or
testing or early implementations, they will either request early early implementations, they will either request early allocation (see
allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set aside for
aside for testing or experimentation (if the registry in question testing or experimentation (if the registry in question allows that
allows that without explicit assignment). It is important that without explicit assignment). It is important that drafts not choose
drafts not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those their own values, lest IANA Services assign one of those values to
values to another document in the meantime. A draft can request a another document in the meantime. A draft can request a specific
specific value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA Services will
accommodate such requests when that's possible, but the proposed accommodate such requests when that's possible, but the proposed
number might have been assigned to some other use by the time the number might have been assigned to some other use by the time the
draft is approved. 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
consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a Services will consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a
different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string collision, and a different value has to be used. When drafts need to
values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the specify string values for testing or early implementations, they
expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value sometimes use the expected final value. But it is often useful to
instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows use a draft value instead, possibly including the draft version
the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing number. This allows the early implementations to be distinguished
the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the from those implementing the final version. A document that intends
final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version to use "foobar" in the final version might use "foobar-testing-
of the draft, for example. draft-05" for the -05 version of the draft, for example.
For some registries, there is a long-standing policy prohibiting For some registries, there is 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.
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 is asked to assign an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS IANA Services is asked to assign an option code value of TBD1 to
Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the DNS Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of
the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space TBD2 to the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code
defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315. space defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the actions,
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the document as
document as appropriate. Including section numbers is especially appropriate. Including section numbers is especially useful when the
useful when the reference document is large; the section numbers will reference document is large; the section numbers will make it easier
make it easier for those searching the reference document to find the for those searching the reference document to find the relevant
relevant information. information.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table of the additions/changes. It is also helpful 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 for this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear
on the IANA web site. For example: on the iana.org site. For example:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- --------- -------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar this RFC, Section 3.2 TBD1 Foobar this RFC, Section 3.2
TBD2 Gumbo this RFC, Section 3.3 TBD2 Gumbo this RFC, Section 3.3
TBD3 Banana this RFC, Section 3.4 TBD3 Banana this RFC, Section 3.4
Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table of Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table of
changes is too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include changes is too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include
the table in the draft, but may include a note asking that the table the table in the draft, but may include a note asking that the table
skipping to change at page 13, line 50 skipping to change at page 13, line 50
publication. publication.
In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted
authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments
on a case-by-case basis. on a case-by-case basis.
The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures, The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures,
or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA
considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific
cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made,
but updating the IANA process beforehand is too onerous. but updating the process beforehand is too onerous.
When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a
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 Services 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 Services normally takes its actions when a document is approved
publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a for 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 Services has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in
cases. See [RFC7120] for details. It is usually not necessary to some cases. See [RFC7120] for details. It is usually not necessary
explicitly mark a registry as allowing early allocation, because the to explicitly mark a registry as allowing early allocation, because
general rules will apply. the general rules will apply.
4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies 4. Choosing a Registration Policy, and Well-Known Policies
A registration policy is the policy that controls how new assignments A registration policy is the policy that controls how new assignments
in a registry are accepted. There are several issues to consider in a registry are accepted. There are several issues to consider
when defining the registration policy. when defining the registration policy.
If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be
made carefully to prevent exhaustion. made carefully to prevent exhaustion.
skipping to change at page 15, line 8 skipping to change at page 15, line 8
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an
essentially equivalent service already exists). essentially equivalent service already exists).
Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact
interoperability and security. See [RFC6709]. interoperability and security. See [RFC6709].
When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no
potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can
usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In
such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is such cases, IANA Services can make assignments directly, provided
given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should that they are given detailed instructions on what types of requests
grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective it should grant, and it is able to do so without exercising
judgement. subjective judgement.
When this is not the case, some level of review is required. When this is not the case, some level of review is required.
However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of
registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be
IETF participants; requests often come from other standards IETF participants; requests often come from other standards
organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards, organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards,
from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for
example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily
difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other
resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial. resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial.
skipping to change at page 15, line 49 skipping to change at page 15, line 49
justification for policies that require significant community justification for policies that require significant community
involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification
Required, in terms of the well-known policies). The needs here will Required, in terms of the well-known policies). The needs here will
vary from registry to registry, and, indeed, over time, and this BCP vary from registry to registry, and, indeed, over time, and this BCP
will not be the last word on the subject. will not be the last word on the subject.
The following policies are defined for common usage. These cover a The following policies are defined for common usage. These cover a
range of typical policies that have been used to describe the range of typical policies that have been used to describe the
procedures for assigning new values in a namespace. It is not procedures for assigning new values in a namespace. It is not
strictly required that documents use these terms; the actual strictly required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and requirement is that the instructions to IANA Services be clear and
unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly recommended unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly recommended
because their meanings are widely understood. Newly minted policies, because their meanings are widely understood. Newly minted policies,
including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated
with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies
are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is
included as to why that is the case. The terms are fully explained included as to why that is the case. The terms are fully explained
in the following subsections. in the following subsections.
1. Private Use 1. Private Use
2. Experimental Use 2. Experimental Use
skipping to change at page 16, line 41 skipping to change at page 16, line 41
LDAP [RFC4520] LDAP [RFC4520]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in
the subsections below) the subsections below)
MPLS Pseudowire Types Registry [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. IANA does using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. IANA
not record assignments from registries or ranges with this policy Services does not record assignments from registries or ranges with
(and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA Services to
assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability. It review them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
is the responsibility of the sites making use of the Private Use interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use
range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within the intended scope of of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within
use). 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, 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 IANA Services does not record assignments from registries or ranges
policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and with this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA Services to
assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability. review them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is not appropriate for interoperability. Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is
documents to select explicit values from registries or ranges with not appropriate for documents to select explicit values from
this policy. Specific experiments will select a value to use during registries or ranges with this policy. Specific experiments will
the experiment. select a value to use during the experiment.
When code points are set aside for experimental use, it's important When code points are set aside for experimental use, it's important
to make clear any expected restrictions on experimental scope. For to make clear any expected restrictions on experimental scope. For
example, say whether it's acceptable to run experiments using those example, say whether it's acceptable to run experiments using those
code points over the open Internet, or whether such experiments code points over the open Internet, or whether such experiments
should be confined to more closed environments. See [RFC6994] for an should be confined to more closed environments. See [RFC6994] for an
example of such considerations. example of such considerations.
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 Services makes allocations in the higher
of the namespace according to one of the other policies. levels of the namespace according to one of the other policies.
Examples: Examples:
- DNS names. IANA manages the top-level domains (TLDs), and, as - DNS names. IANA Services manages the top-level domains (TLDs), and,
[RFC1591] says: as [RFC1591] says:
Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally, Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally,
under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is,
many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and
any further structure is up to the individual organizations. any further structure is up to the individual organizations.
- Object Identifiers, defined by ITU-T recommendation X.208. - Object Identifiers, defined by ITU-T recommendation X.208.
According to <http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/>, some registries According to <http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/>, some registries
include include
* IANA, which hands out OIDs the "Private Enterprises" branch, * IANA, which hands out OIDs the "Private Enterprises" branch,
* ANSI, which hands out OIDs under the "US Organizations" branch, * ANSI, which hands out OIDs under the "US Organizations" branch,
and and
* BSI, which hands out OIDs under the "UK Organizations" branch. * BSI, which hands out OIDs under the "UK Organizations" branch.
- URN namespaces. IANA registers URN Namespace IDs (NIDs [RFC3406]), - URN namespaces. IANA Services registers URN Namespace IDs (NIDs
and the organization registering an NID is responsible for [RFC3406]), and the organization registering an NID is responsible
allocations of URNs within that namespace. 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, IANA be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, IANA Services
generally assigns the next in-sequence unallocated value, but other generally assigns the next in-sequence unallocated value, but other
values may be requested and assigned if an extenuating circumstance values may be requested and assigned if an extenuating circumstance
exists. With names, specific text strings can usually be requested. exists. With names, specific text 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. See Section 2.3.
skipping to change at page 18, line 49 skipping to change at page 18, line 49
really has no filtering. Essentially, any well formed request is really has no filtering. Essentially, any well formed request is
accepted. accepted.
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 For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a designated
document.) For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a expert (see Section 5) is required. While this does not necessarily
designated expert (see Section 5) is required. require formal documentation, information needs to be provided with
the request for the designated expert to evaluate. The registry's
definition needs to make clear to registrants what information is
necessary. The actual process for requesting registrations is
administered by IANA Services (see Section 1.2 to find details).
(This policy was also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions
of this document. The current term is "Expert Review".)
The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the
registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be
considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a
request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense
of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the
registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional
circumstances only. circumstances only.
skipping to change at page 19, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 4
2.3 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 This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
evaluate whether it is sufficiently stable and permanent, and requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the
sufficiently clear to allow interoperable implementations. normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review
the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently
stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to
allow interoperable implementations.
The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a
document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable
long after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an long after assignment of the requested value. Publication of an RFC
RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but Specification
Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a Required is intended to also cover the case of a document published
document published outside of the RFC path, including informal outside of the RFC path, including informal documentation.
documentation.
For RFC publication, formal review by the designated expert is still For RFC publication, formal review by the designated expert is still
requested, but the normal RFC review process is expected to provide requested, but the normal RFC review process is expected to provide
the necessary review for interoperability. The designated expert's the necessary review for interoperability. The designated expert's
review is still important, but it's equally important to note that review is still important, but it's equally important to note that
when there is IETF consensus, the expert can sometimes be "in the when there is IETF consensus, the expert can sometimes be "in the
rough" (see also the last paragraph of Section 5.4). rough" (see also the last paragraph of Section 5.4).
As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
expert, should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough expert, should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough
skipping to change at page 23, line 25 skipping to change at page 23, line 36
policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the
latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that
change the semantics of existing operations. change the semantics of existing operations.
o When there are security implications with respect to the resource, o When there are security implications with respect to the resource,
and thorough review is needed to ensure that the new usage is and thorough review is needed to ensure that the new usage is
sound. Examples of this include lists of acceptable hashing and sound. Examples of this include lists of acceptable hashing and
cryptographic algorithms, and assignment of transport ports in the cryptographic algorithms, and assignment of transport ports in the
system range. system range.
When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or When reviewing a document that asks to create a new registry or
change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert
Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for
justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been
considered and that the strict policy is the right one. considered and that the strict policy is the right one.
Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document
their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in
the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup). the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup).
Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected
policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG. policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG.
skipping to change at page 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 17
checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times. checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times.
The alternative to using a combination requires either that all The alternative to using a combination requires either that all
requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review
by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review
and consensus. and consensus.
This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the
registry is created: registry is created:
IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" under IANA Services is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags"
the "Fruit Parameters" group. New registrations will be permitted under the "Fruit Parameters" group. New registrations will be
through either the IETF Review policy or the Specification permitted through either the IETF Review policy or the
Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used only for Specification Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used
registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. Registrations only for registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF.
requested in IETF documents will be subject to IETF review. Registrations requested in IETF documents will be subject to IETF
review.
Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF
Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification
Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when
each policy is appropriate, as in the example above. each policy is appropriate, as in the example above.
5. Designated Experts 5. Designated Experts
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts
Discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical feedback, Discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical feedback,
but opinions often vary and discussions may continue for some time but opinions often vary and discussions may continue for some time
without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate in without clear resolution. In addition, IANA Services cannot
all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or
discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA Services
expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an relies on a "designated expert" for advice regarding the specific
assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual question of whether an assignment should be made. The designated
who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and expert is an individual who is responsible for carrying out an
returning a recommendation to IANA. appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation to IANA
Services.
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 Services with a subject
to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards matter expert to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA
requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the Services forwards requests for an assignment to the expert for
expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether evaluation, and the expert (after performing the evaluation) informs
or not to make the assignment or registration. In most cases, the IANA Services as to whether or not to make the assignment or
registrants do not work directly with the designated experts. The registration. In most cases, the registrants do not work directly
list of designated experts for a registry is listed in the registry. 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 4.12. 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.
skipping to change at page 25, line 24 skipping to change at page 25, line 39
the experts should be evaluating registration requests for the experts should be evaluating registration requests for
completeness, interoperability, and conflicts with existing protocols completeness, interoperability, and conflicts with existing protocols
and options. and options.
It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some
registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a
request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups, request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups,
acting only when the primary expert is unavailable. In registries acting only when the primary expert is unavailable. In registries
with a pool of experts, the pool often has a single chair responsible with a pool of experts, the pool often has a single chair responsible
for defining how requests are to be assigned to and reviewed by for defining how requests are to be assigned to and reviewed by
experts. In other cases, IANA might assign requests to individual experts. In other cases, IANA Services might assign requests to
members in sequential or approximate random order. The document individual members in sequential or approximate random order. The
defining the registry can, if it's appropriate for the situation, document defining the registry can, if it's appropriate for the
specify how the group should work -- for example, it might be situation, specify how the group should work -- for example, it might
appropriate to specify rough consensus on a mailing list, within a be appropriate to specify rough consensus on a mailing list, within a
related working group, or among a pool of designated experts. related working group, or among a pool of designated experts.
In cases of disagreement among multiple experts, it is the In cases of disagreement among multiple experts, it is the
responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation
to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among to IANA Services. It is not appropriate for IANA Services to resolve
experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating disputes among experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the
body may need to step in to resolve the problem. designating body may need to step in to resolve the problem.
If a designated expert has a conflict of interest for a particular If a designated expert has a conflict of interest for a particular
review (is, for example, an author or significant proponent of a review (is, for example, an author or significant proponent of a
specification related to the registration under review), that expert specification related to the registration under review), that expert
should recuse himself. In the event that all the designated experts should recuse himself. In the event that all the designated experts
are conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated are conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated
for the conflicted review. The responsible AD may then appoint for the conflicted review. The responsible AD may then appoint
someone, or the AD may handle the review. someone, or the AD may handle the review.
This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to
skipping to change at page 26, line 29 skipping to change at page 26, line 47
In the years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to use, In the years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to use,
experience has led to the following observations: experience has led to the following observations:
o A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally o A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally
within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex
ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for
those needing assignments, such as when products need code points those needing assignments, such as when products need code points
to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed
under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester
and IANA should have some transparency into the process if an and IANA Services should have some transparency into the process
answer cannot be given quickly. if an answer cannot be given quickly.
o If a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within o If a designated expert does not respond to IANA Services' requests
a reasonable period of time, either with a response or with a within a reasonable period of time, either with a response or with
reasonable explanation for the delay (some requests may be a reasonable explanation for the delay (some requests may be
particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA
raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by Services must raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the
delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take problems caused by delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG
appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and should take appropriate actions to ensure that the expert
accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a new expert. understands and accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a
new expert.
o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a
shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
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
skipping to change at page 28, line 26 skipping to change at page 29, line 6
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 Services does not record specific
any particular use. assignments for any particular use.
Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment
via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that
any values that are not registered are unassigned and any values that are not registered are unassigned and
available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to
explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is
distinctly different from "Reserved". distinctly different from "Reserved".
Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. Reserved Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. Reserved
values are held for special uses, such as to extend the values are held for special uses, such as to extend the
skipping to change at page 29, line 6 skipping to change at page 29, line 36
registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream). registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream).
Known Unregistered Use: It's known that the assignment or range is Known Unregistered Use: It's known that the assignment or range is
in use without having been defined in accordance with in use without having been defined in accordance with
reasonable practice. Documentation for use of the reasonable practice. Documentation for use of the
assignment or range may be unavailable, inadequate, or assignment or range may be unavailable, inadequate, or
conflicting. This is a warning against use, as well as an conflicting. This is a warning against use, as well as an
alert to network operators, who might see these values in alert to network operators, who might see these values in
use on their networks. use on their networks.
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries 7. Documentation References in 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 the document elsewhere, the registered reference should be to the document
containing the definition, not to the document that is merely containing the definition, not to the document that is merely
skipping to change at page 30, line 21 skipping to change at page 30, line 49
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 [RFC4637], Section 3.2 BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC4637], Section 3.2
If draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis obsoletes RFC 4637 and, because of some If draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis obsoletes RFC 4637 and, because of some
rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA
Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this: Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this:
IANA is asked to change the registration information for the IANA Services is asked to change the registration information for
BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the following: the BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the
following:
Name Description Reference Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- --------- -------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1 BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1
In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the
original RFC and the document organization has not changed the original RFC and the document organization has not changed the
registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do
this: this:
Because this document obsoletes RFC 4637, IANA is asked to change Because this document obsoletes RFC 4637, IANA Services is asked
all registration information that references [RFC4637] to instead to change all registration information that references [RFC4637]
reference [[this RFC]]. to instead reference [[this RFC]].
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then the registration information should be changed other documents, then the registration information should be changed
to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation
references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document for references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document for
registries or registered items that are still in current use. For registries or registered items that are still in current use. For
registries or registered items that are no longer in current use, it registries or registered items that are no longer in current use, it
will usually make sense to leave the references pointing to the old will usually make sense to leave the references pointing to the old
document -- the last current reference for the obsolete items. The document -- the last current reference for the obsolete items. The
main point is to make sure that the reference pointers are as useful main point is to make sure that the reference pointers are as useful
and current as is reasonable, and authors should consider that as and current as is reasonable, and authors should consider that as
they write the IANA Considerations for the new document. As always: they write the IANA Considerations for the new document. As always:
do the right thing, and there is flexibility to allow for that. do the right thing, and there is flexibility to allow for that.
It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding
updating references, especially in cases where some references need updating references, especially in cases where some references need
to be updated and others do not. to be updated and others do not.
9. Miscellaneous Issues 9. Miscellaneous Issues
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 9.1. When There Are No Actions
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In
order to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and
that the author has consciously made such a determination), such
documents should, after the authors confirm that this is the case,
include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA actions. Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA Services
needs to know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience
has shown that it is not always immediately obvious whether a
document has no actions, without reviewing the document in some
detail. In order to make it clear to IANA Services that it has no
actions to perform (and that the author has consciously made such a
determination), such documents should, after the authors confirm that
this is the case, include an IANA Considerations section that states:
IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left This document has no actions.
in the document for the record: it makes it clear later on that the
document explicitly said that no IANA actions were needed (and that
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 IANA Services prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections
be left in the document for the record: it makes it clear later on
that the document explicitly said that no actions were needed (and
that 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
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 Services to make assignments without specifying a precise
policy, IANA will work with the IESG to decide what policy is assignment policy, IANA Services will work with the IESG to decide
appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always be initiated what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always
through the normal IETF consensus process, or through the IESG when be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through
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
register or otherwise administer namespace assignments must provide Services to register or otherwise administer namespace assignments
guidelines for administration of the namespace. must provide 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 need to be applied to such cases, and it might not in this document need to be applied to such cases, and it might not
always be possible to formally assign the desired value. In the always be possible to formally assign the desired value. In the
absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be
reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original
assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of
such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation
with the IESG is advised. with the IESG is advised.
This is part of the reason for the advice in Section 3.1 about using This is part of the reason for the advice in Section 3.1 about using
placeholder values, such as "TBD1", during document development: open placeholder values, such as "TBD1", during document development: open
use of unregistered values after results from well-meant, early use of unregistered values after results from well-meant, early
implementations, where the implementations retained the use of implementations, where the implementations retained the use of
developmental code points that never proceeded to a final IANA developmental code points that never proceeded to a final assignment.
assignment.
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
still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely
difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use
of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is
running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it
may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When
skipping to change at page 32, line 41 skipping to change at page 33, line 19
the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG Approval is the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG Approval is
needed in this case. needed in this case.
o It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit o It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit
comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF
process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed
some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942]. some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942].
o It may be useful to differentiate between revocation, release, and o It may be useful to differentiate between revocation, release, and
transfer. Revocation occurs when IANA removes an assignment, transfer. Revocation occurs when IANA Services removes an
release occurs when the assignee initiates that removal, and assignment, release occurs when the assignee initiates that
transfer occurs when either revocation or release is coupled with removal, and transfer occurs when either revocation or release is
immediate reassignment. It may be useful to specify procedures coupled with immediate reassignment. It may be useful to specify
for each of these, or to explicitly prohibit combinations that are procedures for each of these, or to explicitly prohibit
not desired. combinations that are not desired.
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner
Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative
contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as
contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what
role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this
item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the
individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual
was acting for? was acting for?
This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed
jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might
want to update the registration. IANA has no way to know what want to update the registration. IANA Services has no way to know
company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take the what company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take
registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream the registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream
owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision. owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision.
But in other cases, there is no recourse. But in other cases, there is no recourse.
Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an
"Assignee" or "Owner" field (also referred to as "Change Controller") "Assignee" or "Owner" field (also referred to as "Change Controller")
that can be used to address this situation, giving IANA clear that can be used to address this situation, giving clear guidance as
guidance as to the actual owner of the registration. This is to the actual owner of the registration. This is strongly advised
strongly advised especially for registries that do not require RFCs especially for registries that do not require RFCs to manage their
to manage their information (registries with policies such as First information (registries with policies such as First Come First Served
Come First Served Section 4.4, Expert Review Section 4.5, and Section 4.4, Expert Review Section 4.5, and Specification Required
Specification Required Section 4.6). Alternatively, organizations Section 4.6). Alternatively, organizations can put an organizational
can put an organizational role into the "Contact" field in order to role into the "Contact" field in order to make their ownership clear.
make their ownership clear.
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations
Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further
registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations
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).
skipping to change at page 34, line 4 skipping to change at page 34, line 29
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
All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing
assignment requests as described in this document are subject to assignment requests as described in this document are subject to
whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are
currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision. currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to authenticated and authorized. IANA Services updates registries
instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept according to instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It
clarifications from document authors, relevant working group chairs, also may accept clarifications from document authors, relevant
Designated Experts, and mail list participants, too. working group chairs, 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 Security needs to be considered as part of the selection of a
registration policy. For some protocols, registration of certain registration policy. For some protocols, registration of certain
parameters will have security implications, and registration policies parameters will have security implications, and registration policies
for the relevant registries must ensure that requests get appropriate for the relevant registries must ensure that requests get appropriate
review with those security implications in mind. 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
security considerations are usually included in the protocol document Services. Such security considerations are usually included in the
[RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations protocol document [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA
associated with a particular registry to specify whether value- considerations associated with a particular registry to specify
specific security considerations must be provided when assigning new whether value-specific security considerations must be provided when
values, and the process for reviewing such claims. assigning new values, and the process for reviewing such claims.
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to update any references to RFC 5226 to now point to IANA Services is asked to update any references to RFC 5226 to now
this document. point to this document.
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26
14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226
Significant additions: Significant additions:
o Removed RFC 2119 key words, boilerplate, and reference, preferring o Removed RFC 2119 key words, boilerplate, and reference, preferring
plain English -- this is not a protocol specification. 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 Services
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 best practice for selecting an appropriate policy into o Added best practice for selecting an appropriate policy into
Section 4. Section 4.
o Added Section 4.12, Using Multiple Policies in Combination. o Added Section 4.12, Using Multiple Policies in Combination.
o Added Section 2.3, 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 Registries
o Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents o Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents
o Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner o Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner
o Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry o Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry
Clarifications and such: Clarifications and such:
o Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier o Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier
reading. reading.
o Made clarifications about identification of IANA registries and o Made clarifications about identification of registries and use of
use of URLs for them. URLs for them.
o Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved". o Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved".
o Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to o Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to
the designated expert. the designated expert.
o Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to o Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to
declare this policy. declare this policy.
o Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout. o Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout.
 End of changes. 101 change blocks. 
290 lines changed or deleted 307 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/