< draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-03.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
June 27, 2005 October 24, 2005
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt> <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-03.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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
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 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 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 December 30, 2005. This Internet-Draft expires April, 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 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues
that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning
values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on
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............................................. 4
2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 4
2.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5
3. Creating A Registry...................................... 6 3. Designated Experts....................................... 5
3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 7 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5
3.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 9 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7
3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 10 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 7
4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 11 4. Creating A Registry...................................... 8
4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 11 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 8
4.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 12 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 11
4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 12 4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 12
5. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 13 5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 13
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 13 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 13
5.2. Appeals............................................. 13 5.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 14
5.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 13 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 14
6. Security Considerations.................................. 14 6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 15
6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 15
6.2. Appeals............................................. 16
6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 16
7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 14 7. Security Considerations.................................. 16
7.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 14
8. IANA Considerations...................................... 15 8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 17
8.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 17
8.2. Changes Relative to -02............................. 17
9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 15 9. IANA Considerations...................................... 18
10. References.............................................. 15 10. Acknowledgments......................................... 18
11. Authorsどﾖ Addresses.................................... 17 11. Normative References.................................... 18
12. Informative References.................................. 18
13. Authors' Addresses.................................... 20
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
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 scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the can be delegated, the scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the
namespace where IANA has authority. namespace where IANA has authority.
This document uses the terms どﾖMUSTどﾖ, どﾖSHOULDどﾖ and どﾖMAYどﾖ, 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. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary
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 prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is carefully to prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is
essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion may
reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. Even not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is
when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at
desirable to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of least a minimal review in order to:
or unnecessary wasting of a space. For example, if the space
consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent - prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of a space. For
organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
the "best" names (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also desirable to prevent organizations from obtaining large sets of
shown that some level of minimal review is useful to prevent strings that correspond to the "best" names (e.g., existing
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually company names).
needed (this may not always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-
matter expert). - provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for a essentially
equivalent service already exists).
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 impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed
protocol 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.
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 42
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 3. Designated Experts
3.1. 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 the
rigorous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an IETF
an IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should be
should be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they
they cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for
for name spaces to be created through individual submission name spaces to be created through individual submission documents,
documents, for which no WG is ever formed. 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 specification is publicly and an action helps ensure that the specification is publicly and
permanently available, and allows some review of the specification permanently available, and allows some review of the specification
prior to publication. This is the preferred way of ensuring review, prior to publication and assignment of the requested code points.
and is particularly important if any potential interoperability This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly
issues can arise. For example, many assignments are not just important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For
assignments, but also involve an element of protocol specification. A example, many assignments are not just assignments, but also involve
new option may define fields that need to be parsed and acted on, an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields
which (if specified poorly) may not fit cleanly with the architecture that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may
of other options or the base protocols on which they are built. not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base
protocols on which they are built.
In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 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 relies on when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA relies on
a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. The a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. The
designated expert is a single individual who is responsible for designated expert is a single individual who is responsible for
carrying out an appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation carrying out an appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation
to IANA. The designated expert is responsible for initiating and to IANA.
coordinating as wide a review of an assignment request as may be
necessary to evaluate it properly. This may involve consultation with
a set of technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or
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 It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a experts is to provide IANA with a single-person subject matter expert
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally to which it can delegate the evaluation process to, with that person
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director informing IANA whether the assignment is to be made. IANA effectively
will appoint replacements if necessary. delegates evaluating the request to the designated expert.
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert
normal IETF appeals process as discussed in Section 5.2. below.
The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
as wide a review of an assignment request as appropriate to evaluate
it properly. This may involve consultation with a set of technology
experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or consultation with a
working group (or its mailing list if the working group has
disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows specific
review criteria as documented in a related document that describes
management of the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of
[RFC3748,RFC3575,XXX] for examples that have been done for specific
name spaces).
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions
to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to
be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are
expected to apply any documented review or vetting procedures that
may apply, or in the absence of documented criteria, follow
generally-accepted norms, e.g., those in section 3.3.
Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail.
Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (e.g., upon
recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically
named at the time a document that creates a new numbering space is
published as an RFC, but as experts originally appointed may later
become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary.
Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be
removed by the IESG. removed by the IESG.
3. Creating A Registry 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews
In the seven years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to
use, experience has led to the following observations:
- a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally
within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex
ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems, such as
when products need code points to ship. This is not to say that
all reviews can be completed under a firm deadline, but they must
be started, and the requester should have some transparency into
the process if an answer cannot be given quickly.
- The designated expert is not intended to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a sort
of shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts for a particular
decision. That is, the expert must be able to defend a decision to
the community as a whole.
In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no
specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the
presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless
there is a compelling reason not to. Possible reasons include:
- scarcity of codepoints
- documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure
interoperability
- the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the
extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally
understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and
would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the
intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a
personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant
differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security
model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message
type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed
systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar
result), etc.
- the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
4. Creating A Registry
Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be created Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be created
together with an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and together with an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and
guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
3.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions 4.1. 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 to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name
space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual 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
unambiguous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where unambiguous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where
possible, since their 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
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 purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See
[EXPERIMENTATION] 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, IP addresses
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 text strings 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. The required documentation and review Expert is required. The required documentation and review
criteria to be used by the Designated Expert should be criteria to be used by the Designated Expert should be
provided when defining the registry. 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 public specification, in sufficient detail so
interoperability between independent implementations is that interoperability between independent implementations
possible. [XXX: who assesses whether a non-RFC document is is possible. [XXX: who assesses whether a non-RFC document
sufficiently clear for interoperability? IANA cannot.] is sufficiently clear for interoperability? IANA cannot.]
Examples: SCSP [SCSP] Examples: SCSP [SCSP]
RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an
RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices. RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices.
IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA- IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA-
CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs
that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored
IETF Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is that the IETF Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. 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 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 or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or
damaging manner. damaging manner.
To ensure adequate community review, such documents should To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
be Last Called. shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored documents with
an IETF Last Call.
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. IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be Although there is no requirement that the request be
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis. basis.
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often. Rather, it IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a
is intended to be used in conjunction with other policies "common case;" indeed, it has been seldom used in practice.
as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other Rather, it is intended to be available in conjunction with
allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case where
timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be
Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling
processes implied by other policies that could have been reason. IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the
employed for a particular assignment. public review processes implied by other policies that
could have been employed for a particular assignment.
The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation
under IESG Approval:
- The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another
path is available that is more appropriate and allows
broader community review
- before approving a request, the community should be
consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as
much information as is reasonably possible.
Except in unusual circumstances, the IESG is expected
[XXX: Is Section 4.3. below sufficient to cover the case [XXX: Is Section 4.3. below sufficient to cover the case
that IESG is designed to handle?] 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.
3.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry
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どﾖs protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author'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.
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 an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in
maintaining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered maintaining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered
values) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space. values) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space.
In particular, instructions MUST include: In particular, instructions MUST include:
skipping to change at page 10, line 41 skipping to change at page 12, line 46
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].
3.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries 4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries
Updating the registration process for an existing name space is Updating the registration process for an existing name space is
similar to that used when creating an new namespace. That is, a similar to that used when creating a new namespace. That is, a
document is produced that makes reference to the existing namespace document is produced that makes reference to the existing namespace
and then provides detailed management guidelines for each registry. and then provides detailed management guidelines for each registry.
Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [RFC1818]. Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [RFC1818].
Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then) Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then)
pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575]. pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575].
4. Registering Values In An Existing Registry 5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry
4.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values
Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub- already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear: lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:
- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact - 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 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- where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
should be clear from the references.) should be clear from the references.)
skipping to change at page 11, line 29 skipping to change at page 13, line 34
- For each value being requested, give it a unique name. When the - For each value being requested, give it a unique name. When the
value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout
the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled
in, use the "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC in, use the "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC
has the correct assigned value filled in in all of the relevant has the correct assigned value filled in in all of the relevant
places where the value is listed in the final document. For values places where the value is listed in the final document. For values
that are text strings, a specific name can be suggested: IANA will that are text strings, a specific name can be suggested: IANA will
assign the name, unless it conflicts with a name already in use. assign the name, unless it conflicts with a name already in use.
- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents - Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldnどﾖt pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe- such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX cific value should be used (together with the reason for the
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values choice. For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to
some other use. assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number
has already been assigned for some other use.
For many registries, IANA also has a long-standing policy pro-
hibiting assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization
name basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless
there is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this
document is intended to change those policies or prevent their
future application.
- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA - The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate. actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table. include a summary table.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number: of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS 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.
4.2. Maintaining Registrations 5.2. Maintaining Registrations
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. include more information than just the registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information, Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state
who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. It is who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. In
appropriate to: different cases, it may be appropriate to specify one or more of the
following:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints 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 registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration. registration.
- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to - Designate the IESG or another entity as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get reassign ownership of a registration and any requirements or
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be conditions on doing so. This is mainly to get around the problem
reached in order to make necessary updates. when some registration owner cannot be reached in order to make
necessary updates.
4.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 5.3. 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 overrule documented procedures, or to obviate the intention is not to overrule properly documented procedures, or to
need for protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations, obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA
but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious Considerations, but to permit assignments in individual cases where
that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, but updating
process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy the IANA process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as
a burden. In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA too heavy a burden. In general, the IETF would like to see deficient
registration procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF IANA registration procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF
standards process. standards process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for
needed assignments.
5. Miscellaneous Issues 6. Miscellaneous Issues
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 6.1. 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 the author has consciously made such a determination!), such
documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA Actions. This document has no IANA Actions.
5.2. Appeals This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted
after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be
true.
In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered
valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be
considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may
be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made
clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
or
[RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.]
6.2. Appeals
Appeals on registration decisions made by the IANA can be appealed to Appeals on registration decisions made by the IANA can be appealed to
the IESG using the normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section the IESG using the normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section
6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to
the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB.
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 6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise
evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will
continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing
policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus
process. process.
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.
6. 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 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 14, line 27 skipping to change at page 17, line 9
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".
7. Changes Relative to RFC 2434 8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434
Changes include: Changes include:
- Major reordering of text to group the "creation of registries" - Major reordering of text to group the "creation of registries"
text in same section, etc. text in same section, etc.
- Numerous editorial changes to improve readability. - Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.
- Change "IETF Consensus" term to "IETF Review" and added more - Change "IETF Consensus" term to "IETF Review" and added more
clarifications. clarifications.
- Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies. - Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.
- Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in - Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in
RFCs". RFCs".
- no doubt other things... - no doubt other things...
7.1. Changes Relative to -00 8.1. 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 8.2. Changes Relative to -02
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is
to make clear the Expert Reviewers are accountable to the com-
munity, and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the
default case.
- removed wording: "By virtue of the IAB's role as overseer of
IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final
[IETF-PROCESS]." This document now makes no changes to existing
appeal mechanisms relative to RFC 2026.
9. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA Considerations. This document is all about IANA Considerations.
9. Acknowledgments 10. 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].
10. References 11. Normative References
12. Informative 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, [BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283,
February 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
skipping to change at page 17, line 8 skipping to change at page 20, line 13
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial [RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. July 2003. In User Service). B. Aboba. July 2003.
[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). B. Aboba, L. [RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz, Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed.. June 2004. Ed.. June 2004.
[RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H. [RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H.
Alvestrand. October 2004. Alvestrand. October 2004.
11. Authorsどﾖ Addresses 13. 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
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
132 lines changed or deleted 262 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/