< draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.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
September 16, 2004 June 27, 2005
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt> <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
RFC 3668. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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 mate- time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
rial or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material 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/1id-abstracts.html
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 March, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This Internet-Draft expires December 30, 2005.
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 new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
transform 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 assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
skipping to change at page 3, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
the specific text that must be included in documents that place the specific text that must be included in documents that place
demands on 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
2.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions....................... 6 3. Creating A Registry...................................... 6
3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 7
3.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 9
3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 10
4. Registration maintenance................................. 8 4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 11
4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 11
4.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 12
4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 12
5. What To Put In Documents................................. 8 5. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 13
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 9 5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 13
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space.. 9 5.2. Appeals............................................. 13
5.3. Creation of New Registries.......................... 10 5.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 13
6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs.................... 11 6. Security Considerations.................................. 14
7. Security Considerations.................................. 12 7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 14
7.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 14
8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 13 8. IANA Considerations...................................... 15
8.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 13
9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 13 9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 15
10. References.............................................. 13 10. References.............................................. 15
11. Authors' Addresses...................................... 14 11. Authorsどﾖ Addresses.................................... 17
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 fields have consistent values and interpretations in different
implementations, 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 value may be a text string, a number or
kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name space is another kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name
called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each assignment of a space is called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each
number in a name space is called a registration. assignment of a number in a name space is called a registration.
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it 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 IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while
subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space
has 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 scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the
level. namespace where IANA has authority.
This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their This document uses the terms どﾖMUSTどﾖ, どﾖSHOULDどﾖ and どﾖMAYどﾖ, 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 space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made
carefully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the carefully to prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is
space is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly
perfectly reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. Even
Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually
desirable to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of desirable to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of
or unnecessary wasting of a space. For example, if the space or unnecessary wasting of a space. For example, if the space
consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent
organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to
the "best" names (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also the "best" names (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also
shown that some level of minimal review is useful to prevent shown that some level of minimal review is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually
needed (this may not always be immediately obvious to a non-subject- needed (this may not always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-
matter expert). matter expert).
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
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 can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given
specific 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.
2.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts
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 and the question becomes who should perform the review and how
rigorous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that rigorous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that
an IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand an IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand
should be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so should be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so
they cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible they cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible
for name spaces to be created through individual submission for name spaces to be created through individual submission
documents, 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 specification is publicly and
assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] This is the permanently available, and allows some review of the specification
preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly important if prior to publication. This is the preferred way of ensuring review,
any potential interoperability issues can arise. For example, many and is particularly important if any potential interoperability
assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of issues can arise. For example, many assignments are not just
protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to assignments, but also involve an element of protocol specification. A
be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit new option may define fields that need to be parsed and acted on,
cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols which (if specified poorly) may not fit cleanly with the architecture
on which they are built. of other options or the base protocols on which they are built.
In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 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 media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a
current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for
new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned,
or 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 time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot
participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or
when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA relies on
allow general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. The
recommendations regarding a registration question. Instead, the IANA designated expert is a single individual who is responsible for
will rely on a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment carrying out an appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation
matters. That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a to IANA. The designated expert is responsible for initiating and
specific point-of-contact (one or a small number of individuals) and coordinating as wide a review of an assignment request as may be
acts upon the returned recommendation from the designated expert. The necessary to evaluate it properly. This may involve consultation with
designated expert can initiate and coordinate as wide a review of an a set of technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or
assignment request as may be necessary to evaluate it properly. consultation with a working group (or its mailing list if the working
group has disbanded), etc. In some case, the designated expert
follows specific review guidelines as documented in a related
document. (See the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748,RFC3575]
for examples of some review criteria an expert follows for specific
protocol name spaces.)
Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the 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- normal IETF appeals process as discussed in Section 5.2. below.
PROCESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG,
they may be removed by the IESG.
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be
removed by the IESG.
3. Creating A Registry
Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be created
together with an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and
guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions
The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use 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 to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name
space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and
unambigous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where unambiguous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where
possible, since there meaning is widely understood. possible, since their 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 prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for
IANA to review such assignments and assignments are not IANA to review such assignments and assignments are not
generally useful for interoperability. generally useful for interoperability.
Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have
significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
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 description of what the value would be used for. For
numbers, 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 text strings 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. The required documentation and review
criteria to be used by the Designated Expert should be
provided when defining the registry.
Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
available reference, in sufficient detail so that available reference, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is interoperability between independent implementations is
possible. possible. [XXX: who assesses whether a non-RFC document is
sufficiently clear for interoperability? IANA cannot.]
Examples: SCSP [SCSP] Examples: SCSP [SCSP]
IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG. RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an
Although there is no requirement that the request be RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices.
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis.
IETF Review - (Formerly "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA-
New values are assigned only through RFC publication of CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs
documents that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored
Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. The intention is that IETF Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is that the
the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the
the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable 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
otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate manner. otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or
damaging manner.
[XXX: should an explicit last call be required?] To ensure adequate community review, such documents should
be Last Called.
Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent
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]
IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis.
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often. Rather, it
is intended to be used in conjunction with other policies
as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a
timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG
Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review
processes implied by other policies that could have been
employed for a particular assignment.
[XXX: Is Section 4.3. below sufficient to cover the case
that IESG is designed to handle?]
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name 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 split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are
globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required
policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site
specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it
possible to have different policies in place for different ranges. possible to have different policies in place for different ranges.
4. Registration maintenance 3.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry
Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for
maintaining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints and review as with new registrations.
- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration.
- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
reached in order to make necessary updates.
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どﾖs
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the
appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA
Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections
define 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
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu-
ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA Actions.
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space
Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:
- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
should be clear from the references.)
- For each value being requested, give it a unique name, e.g., TBD1,
TBD2, etc. Throughout the document where the actual IANA-assigned
value should be filled in, use "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure
that the final RFC has the correct assigned value filled in in all
of the relevant places where the value is listed in the final doc-
ument.
- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
some other use.
- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
5.3. Creation of New Registries
Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of 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
taining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val- maintaining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered
ues) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In values) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space.
particular, instructions MUST include: In particular, instructions MUST include:
1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. The 1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. The
name will appear on the IANA web page and will be refered to in name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to in
future Internet Drafts that need to allocate a value from the future documents that need to allocate a value from the new
new space. space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should
be provided.
2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new 2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new
value. value.
3) The process through which future assignments are made (see Sec- 3) The process through which future assignments are made (see
tion 3). Section 3.1).
Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name
the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name
should be relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the should be relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the
time the document is sent to the IESG for approval. time the document is sent to the IESG for approval.
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public 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.
When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is
quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in Sec- quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in
tion 3 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred mecha- Section 3.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred
nism in those cases where the sample policies provide the desired mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the
level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the above poli- desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
cies and include additional guidelines for what kind of considera- above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of
tions should be taken into account by the review process. For exam- considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
ple, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated Expert, but For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should follow. Expert, but 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 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 DCHP Option space Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space
[RFCXXX]. The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType [RFCXXX]. The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType
field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry enti- field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry
tled "FooType values". Initial values for FooType field are entitled "FooType values". Initial values for FooType field are
given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert
Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a name and Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a name and
the value. 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 3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on Updating the registration process for an existing name space is
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise similar to that used when creating an new namespace. That is, a
evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will document is produced that makes reference to the existing namespace
continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing and then provides detailed management guidelines for each registry.
policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [RFC1818].
process.
Any decisions made by the IANA can be appealed using the normal IETF Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then)
appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575].
Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if
necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as
overseer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is
final.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA 4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
for managing the name space. 4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values
Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:
- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
should be clear from the references.)
- For each value being requested, give it a unique name. When the
value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout
the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled
in, use the "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC
has the correct assigned value filled in in all of the relevant
places where the value is listed in the final document. For values
that are text strings, a specific name can be suggested: IANA will
assign the name, unless it conflicts with a name already in use.
- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldnどﾖt pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
some other use.
- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
4.2. Maintaining Registrations
Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, MIME types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state
who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. It is
appropriate to:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints and review as with new registrations.
- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration.
- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
reached in order to make necessary updates.
4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures
[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 Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the
documented 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 routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA
considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are
sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group
documents (for which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points documents (for which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points
from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the
documented procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the documented procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the
cases. In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there cases. In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there
is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but
the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG
is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The
intention is not to overule documented procedures, or to obviate the intention is not to overrule documented procedures, or to obviate the
need for protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations, need for protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations,
but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious
that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA
process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy
a burden. a burden. In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA
registration procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF
standards process.
7. Security Considerations 5. Miscellaneous Issues
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such
documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA Actions.
5.2. Appeals
Appeals on registration decisions made by the IANA can be appealed to
the IESG using the normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section
6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to
the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue
of the IABどﾖs role as overseer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the
IABどﾖs decision is final.
5.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise
evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will
continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing
policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus
process.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
for managing the name space.
6. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated. authenticated.
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 (e.g., if it identifies a related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a
protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered,
information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to
existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 27
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 as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In
particular, 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. Changes Relative to RFC 2434 7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434
TBD Changes include:
8.1. Changes Relative to -00 - Major reordering of text to group the "creation of registries"
text in same section, etc.
- Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.
- Change "IETF Consensus" term to "IETF Review" and added more
clarifications.
- Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.
- Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in
RFCs".
- no doubt other things...
7.1. Changes Relative to -00
- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear. - Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.
8. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA Considerations.
9. Acknowledgments 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].
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 16, line 30
Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April
1998. 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, Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869,
November 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
[RFC1818] Best Current Practices. J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter.
August 1995.
[RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake
3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September
2000.
[RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002.
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial [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.
11. Authors' Addresses [RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005.
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. July 2003.
[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed.. June 2004.
[RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H.
Alvestrand. October 2004.
11. Authorsどﾖ 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
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur- Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR- INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 61 change blocks. 
214 lines changed or deleted 318 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/