< draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt >
INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten
IBM IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Cisco
July 19, 2004 September 16, 2004
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt> <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 mate- time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference mate-
rial or to cite them other than as "work in progress." rial or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft expires January, 2005. This Internet-Draft expires March, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and
deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a
new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication trans- new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
form for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
values and interpretations in different implementations, their values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF pro- assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
tocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA). Authority (IANA).
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can
be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management
of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instruc- of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise
tions describing that role. This document discusses issues that instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues
should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning
a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the spe- values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on
cific text that must be included in documents that place demands on the specific text that must be included in documents that place
the IANA. demands on the IANA.
Contents Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 3 1. Introduction............................................. 3
2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4 2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions....................... 6 3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions....................... 6
skipping to change at page 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
5. What To Put In Documents................................. 8 5. What To Put In Documents................................. 8
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 9 5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 9
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space.. 9 5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space.. 9
5.3. Creation of New Registries.......................... 10 5.3. Creation of New Registries.......................... 10
6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs.................... 11 6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs.................... 11
7. Security Considerations.................................. 12 7. Security Considerations.................................. 12
8. Acknowledgments.......................................... 12 8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 13
8.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 13
9. References............................................... 13 9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 13
10. Authors' Addresses...................................... 14 10. References.............................................. 13
11. Authors' Addresses...................................... 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other
well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or
MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has
been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be
assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption
or authentication algorithm for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such or authentication algorithm for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such
fields have consistent values and interpretations in different imple- fields have consistent values and interpretations in different
mentations, their assignment must be administered by a central implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU]. Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].
In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
a "name space"; its actual content may be a name, a number or another a "name space"; its actual content may be a name, a number or another
kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name space is kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name space is
called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each assignment of a called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each assignment of a
number in a name space is called a registration. number in a name space is called a registration.
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values
should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on
what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews
issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy
for assigning numbers to name spaces. for assigning numbers to name spaces.
Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some
cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
further assignments can be made independently and with no further further assignments can be made independently and with no further
(central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while subdo- IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while
mains are administered by the organization to which the space has subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space
been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space
can be delegated, the IANA only deals with assignments at the top can be delegated, the IANA only deals with assignments at the top
level. level.
This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their
negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case, negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
"the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process. protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.
2. Issues To Consider 2. Issues To Consider
One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the
space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made care- space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made
fully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the space carefully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the
is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly rea- space is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be
sonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. Even when perfectly reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one.
the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually
to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of or unnec- desirable to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of
essary wasting of a space. For example, if the space consists of or unnecessary wasting of a space. For example, if the space
text strings, it may be desirable to prevent organizations from consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent
obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to the "best" names organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to
(e.g., existing company names). Experience has also shown that some the "best" names (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also
level of minimal review is useful to prevent assignments in cases shown that some level of minimal review is useful to prevent
where the request is malformed or not actually needed (this may not assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually
always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-matter expert). needed (this may not always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-
matter expert).
A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name
space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate, space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate,
as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments. as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments.
A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed proto- impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed
col extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed, protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
review is often essential to prevent future interoperability review is often essential to prevent future interoperability
problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail. problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail.
In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no
potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be
given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA
can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given spe- can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given
cific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and specific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and
what information must be provided before a request for an assigned what information must be provided before a request for an assigned
number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an
assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow
it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity. it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity.
In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate, In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate,
and the question becomes who should perform the review and how rigor- and the question becomes who should perform the review and how
ous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that an rigorous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that
IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should an IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand
be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they should be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so
cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for they cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible
name spaces to be created through individual submission documents, for name spaces to be created through individual submission
for which no WG is ever formed. documents, for which no WG is ever formed.
One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to
have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such
an action helps ensure that the IESG and relevant WGs review the an action helps ensure that the IESG and relevant WGs review the
assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] This is the assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] This is the
preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly important if preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly important if
any potential interoperability issues can arise. For example, many any potential interoperability issues can arise. For example, many
assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of
protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to
be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit
cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols
on which they are built. on which they are built.
In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to
get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful
(and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing (and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing
list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for
media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a cur- media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a
rent or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for new current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for
registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, or new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned,
to give advice for persons who want help in understanding what a or to give advice for persons who want help in understanding what a
proper registration should contain. proper registration should contain.
While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical
expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot partici- time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot
pate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or
such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot allow when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot
general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive recom- allow general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive
mendations regarding a registration question. Instead, the IANA will recommendations regarding a registration question. Instead, the IANA
rely on a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. will rely on a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment
That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a specific matters. That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a
point-of-contact (one or a small number of individuals) and acts upon specific point-of-contact (one or a small number of individuals) and
the returned recommendation from the designated expert. The desig- acts upon the returned recommendation from the designated expert. The
nated expert can initiate and coordinate as wide a review of an designated expert can initiate and coordinate as wide a review of an
assignment request as may be necessary to evaluate it properly. assignment request as may be necessary to evaluate it properly.
Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
will appoint replacements if necessary. will appoint replacements if necessary.
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PRO- normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
CESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they PROCESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG,
may be removed by the IESG. they may be removed by the IESG.
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions 3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions
The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to
date. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual date. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and unam- requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and
bigous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where possible, unambigous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where
since there meaning is widely understood. possible, since there meaning is widely understood.
Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
prevent multiple sites from using the same value in differ- prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
ent (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA to different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for
review such assignments and assignments are not generally IANA to review such assignments and assignments are not
useful for interoperability. generally useful for interoperability.
Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have signif- Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have
icance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header lines in significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header
email messages. lines in email messages.
Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See [EXPERI- purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See
MENTATION] for details. [EXPERIMENTATION] for details.
Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values
provided they have been given control over that part of the provided they have been given control over that part of the
name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the
namespace according to one of the other policies. namespace according to one of the other policies.
Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers
First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so
long as they provide a point of contact and a brief long as they provide a point of contact and a brief
description of what the value would be used for. For num- description of what the value would be used for. For
bers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA; numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA;
with names, specific names are usually requested. with names, specific names are usually requested.
Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP
and UDP port numbers. and UDP port numbers.
Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
Expert is required. Expert is required.
Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be docu- Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
mented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability available reference, in sufficient detail so that
between independent implementations is possible. interoperability between independent implementations is
possible.
Examples: SCSP [SCSP] Examples: SCSP [SCSP]
IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG. IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be docu- Although there is no requirement that the request be
mented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request docu- documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
ments or other supporting materials on a case-by-case documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis. basis.
IETF Review - (Formerly "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) IETF Review - (Formerly "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS])
New values are assigned only through RFC publication of New values are assigned only through RFC publication of
documents that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- documents that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. The intention is that Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. The intention is that
the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by
the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable
working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed
assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT]. Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].
Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
RFCs approved by the IESG. RFCs approved by the IESG.
Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG] Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG]
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name
space into several categories, with assignments out of each category space into several categories, with assignments out of each category
handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is
split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are glob- split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are
ally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required pol- globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required
icy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site spe- policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site
cific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it possi- specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it
ble to have different policies in place for different ranges. possible to have different policies in place for different ranges.
4. Registration maintenance 4. Registration maintenance
Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself. Exam- include more information than just the registered value itself.
ple information can include point of contact information, security Example information can include point of contact information,
issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In such security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for main- such cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for
taining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to: maintaining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same con- - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
straints and review as with new registrations. constraints and review as with new registrations.
- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for - Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the regis- registration, but the author does not agree to change the
tration. registration.
- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to - Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
reached in order to make necessary updates. reached in order to make necessary updates.
5. What To Put In Documents 5. What To Put In Documents
The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered
in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other
protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the appro- job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the
priate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Con- appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA
siderations" section is appropriate. The following subsections define Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections
what is needed for the different types of IANA actions. define what is needed for the different types of IANA actions.
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu- the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu-
ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states: ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 10, line 23
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur- IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315. in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
5.3. Creation of New Registries 5.3. Creation of New Registries
Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of
an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in main- an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in main-
taining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val- taining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val-
ues) MUST document the process through which future assignments are ues) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In
made. Such a section must state clearly: particular, instructions MUST include:
- The name of the new registry to be created. The name will appear 1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. The
on the IANA web page and will be refered to in future Internet name will appear on the IANA web page and will be refered to in
Drafts that need to allocate a value from the new space. future Internet Drafts that need to allocate a value from the
new space.
- The review steps under which future allocations from the name 2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new
space will be made (i.e., see Section 3). Note: When a Desig- value.
nated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the Designated
Expert in the document itself; instead, the name should be
relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the time the
document is sent to the IESG for approval.
- If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public 3) The process through which future assignments are made (see Sec-
tion 3).
Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name
the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name
should be relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the
time the document is sent to the IESG for approval.
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public
mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types), mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types),
that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that
use of a Designated Expert MUST also be specified. use of a Designated Expert MUST also be specified.
- if the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an If the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an
outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the
requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity. requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity.
Finally, it is quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is
cited above and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in Sec-
mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the tion 3 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred mecha-
desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the nism in those cases where the sample policies provide the desired
above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the above poli-
considerations should be taken into account by the review process. cies and include additional guidelines for what kind of considera-
For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated tions should be taken into account by the review process. For exam-
Expert, but includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should ple, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated Expert, but
follow. includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should follow.
For example, a document could say something like: For example, a document could say something like:
This document defines the FooBar DHCP option (see Section y), This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space [RFCXXX]. Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space
The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType field, for [RFCXXX]. The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType
which IANA is to create and maintain a registry. Initial values field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry enti-
for FooType field are given below; future assignments are to be tled "FooType values". Initial values for FooType field are
made through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert
consist of a name and the value. Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a name and
the value.
Name Value Definition Name Value Definition
---- ----- ---------- ---- ----- ----------
Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1 Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1
NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2 NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2
For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME- the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME-
LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575]. LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575].
6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs 6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evalua- the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise
tion policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will
to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing
can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process. policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus
process.
Any decisions made by the IANA can be appealed using the normal IETF Any decisions made by the IANA can be appealed using the normal IETF
appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specif- appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS].
ically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if neces- Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if
sary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as over- necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as
seer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final. overseer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is
final.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
for managing the name space. for managing the name space.
[XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is [XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is
appropriate to include??] appropriate to include??]
Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the docu- Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the
mented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always
adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older
routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA considera- routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA
tions. In addition, documented IANA considerations are sometimes considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are
found to be too stringent to allow even working group documents (for sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group
which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points from IANA in documents (for which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points
advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the documented from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the
procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the cases. In order documented procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the
to allow assignments in individual cases where there is strong IETF cases. In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there
consensus that an allocation should go forward, but the documented is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but
procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG is granted the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG
authority to approve assignments in such cases. The intention is not is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The
to overule documented procedures, or to obviate the need for proto- intention is not to overule documented procedures, or to obviate the
cols to properly document their IANA Considerations, but to permit need for protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations,
assignments in individual cases where it is obvious that the assign- but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious
ment should just be made, but updating the IANA process just to that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA
assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy a burden. process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy
a burden.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated. authenticated.
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a proto- Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
col may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities related protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities
to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a protocol) related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a
may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, informa- protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered,
tion about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to
registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true security existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true
issues surrounding the use of a registered number. security issues surrounding the use of a registered number.
An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be
as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In par- as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In
ticular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated
with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to
state that "the security issues associated with this type have not state that "the security issues associated with this type have not
been assessed". been assessed".
8. Acknowledgments 8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434
TBD
8.1. Changes Relative to -00
- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.
9. Acknowledgments
From RFC 2434: From RFC 2434:
Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and
patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document. patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document.
Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the
document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
borrowed from [MIME-REG]. borrowed from [MIME-REG].
9. References 10. References
[ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, [ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994. See also: RFC 1700, October 1994. See also:
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, "Multi- [BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter,
protocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283, February "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283,
1998. February 1998.
[DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP [DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Consid- [EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
ered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January 2004. Considered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January
2004.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work [IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work
of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B. Car- of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B.
penter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June 2000. Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June
2000.
[IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revi- [IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
sion 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Proto- [IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
col", RFC 1825, August 1995. Protocol", RFC 1825, August 1995.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded [MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Con- Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
tinuations", RFC 2184, August 1997. Continuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.
[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Inter- [MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
net Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four: Registration Internet Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four:
Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996. Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache Syn- [SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache
chronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April 1998. Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April
1998.
[SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D. [SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, Novem- Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869,
ber 1995. November 1995.
[VENDOR-EXT] "Considerations on the Extensibility of IETF protocols", [VENDOR-EXT] "Considerations on the Extensibility of IETF protocols",
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial [RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003. In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003.
10. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Thomas Narten Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave. 3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
Phone: 919-254-7798 Phone: 919-254-7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com EMail: narten@us.ibm.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
5245 Arboretum Dr 5245 Arboretum Dr
Los Altos, CA Los Altos, CA
USA USA
Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
188 lines changed or deleted 212 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/