< draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-03.txt   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.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
October 24, 2005 March 6, 2005
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-03.txt> <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.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 April, 2005. This Internet-Draft expires in six months.
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 14 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
Contents Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 4 1. Introduction............................................. 4
2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 4 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 4
3. Designated Experts....................................... 5 3. Designated Experts....................................... 5
3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 6
3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7
3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 7 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 7
4. Creating A Registry...................................... 8 4. Creating A Registry...................................... 9
4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 8 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 9
4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 11 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 11
4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 12 4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 13
5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 13 5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 13
5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 13 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 13
5.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 14 5.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 14
5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 14 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 15
6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 15 6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 16
6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 15 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 16
6.2. Appeals............................................. 16 6.2. Appeals............................................. 16
6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 16 6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 16
7. Security Considerations.................................. 16 7. Security Considerations.................................. 17
8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 17 8. Open Issues.............................................. 17
8.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 17
8.2. Changes Relative to -02............................. 17
9. IANA Considerations...................................... 18 9. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 18
9.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 18
9.2. Changes Relative to -02............................. 18
10. Acknowledgments......................................... 18 10. IANA Considerations..................................... 19
11. Normative References.................................... 18 11. Acknowledgments......................................... 19
12. Informative References.................................. 18 12. Normative References.................................... 19
13. Authors' Addresses.................................... 20 13. Informative References.................................. 19
14. Authors' Addresses.................................... 21
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 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their
negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case, negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
"the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process. protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.
2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary 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, potential exhaustion may essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion will
not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is probably not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is
essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at
least a minimal review in order to: least a minimal review prior to assignment in order to:
- prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of a space. For - prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of a space. For
example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
desirable to prevent organizations from obtaining large sets of desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
strings that correspond to the "best" names (e.g., existing that correspond to the "best" names (e.g., existing company
company names). names).
- provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and - provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for a essentially actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for an essentially
equivalent service already exists). 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.
In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited and there are
potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be no potential interoperability issues; in such cases assigned numbers
given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA can safely be given out to anyone. When no subjective review is
can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given needed, the IANA can make assignments directly, provided that the
specific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and IANA is given specific instructions on what types of requests it
what information must be provided before a request for an assigned should grant, and what information must be provided as part of the
number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an request for an assigned number.
assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow
it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity.
3. Designated Experts It should be noted that the IANA does not create or define assignment
policy itself; rather, it carries out policies that have been defined
by others, i.e., in RFCs. IANA must be given a set of guidelines
that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity
and without requiring any technical expertise with respect to the
protocols that make use of a registry.
3. Designated Experts
3.1. The Motivation For 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 the and the question becomes who should perform the review and what is
purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an IETF the purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an
Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should be IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should
consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they
cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for
name spaces to be created through individual submission documents, name spaces to be created through individual submission 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 and assignment of the requested code points. prior to publication and assignment of the requested code points.
This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
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 feedback, 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. to IANA.
It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated
experts is to provide IANA with a single-person subject matter expert experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a single-person subject
to which it can delegate the evaluation process to, with that person matter expert to which it can delegate the evaluation process to,
informing IANA whether the assignment is to be made. IANA effectively with that person informing IANA whether the assignment is to be made.
delegates evaluating the request to the designated expert.
IANA effectively delegates evaluating the request to the IETF's
designated expert.
3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert
The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
as wide a review of an assignment request as appropriate to evaluate as wide a review of an assignment request as appropriate to evaluate
it properly. This may involve consultation with a set of technology it properly. This may involve consultation with a set of technology
experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or consultation with a experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or consultation with a
working group (or its mailing list if the working group has working group (or its mailing list if the working group has
disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows specific disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows specific
review criteria as documented in a related document that describes review criteria as documented in a related document that describes
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are
expected to apply any documented review or vetting procedures that expected to apply any documented review or vetting procedures that
may apply, or in the absence of documented criteria, follow may apply, or in the absence of documented criteria, follow
generally-accepted norms, e.g., those in section 3.3. generally-accepted norms, e.g., those in section 3.3.
Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail. Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail.
Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (e.g., upon Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (e.g., upon
recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically
named at the time a document that creates a new numbering space is named at the time a document that creates a new numbering space is
published as an RFC, but as experts originally appointed may later approved by the IESG, but as experts originally appointed may later
become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary. 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.
3.3. Designated Expert Reviews 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews
In the seven years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to In the seven years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to
use, experience has led to the following observations: use, experience has led to the following observations:
- a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally - a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally
within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex
ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems, such as ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems, such as
when products need code points to ship. This is not to say that 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 all reviews can be completed under a firm deadline, but they must
be started, and the requester should have some transparency into be started, and the requester and IANA should have some
the process if an answer cannot be given quickly. transparency into the process if an answer cannot be given
quickly.
- The designated expert is not intended to personally bear the - if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within
a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or to explain
that the requests are particularly complex, and if this is a
recurring event, the IANA must raise the issue with the IESG.
Because of the problems caused by delayed evaluations and
assignments, the IESG should take appropriate actions, such as
ensuring that the expert understands their responsibilities, or
appointing a new expert.
- The designated expert is not required to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a sort burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a sort
of shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as of shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts for a particular the support of other subject matter experts for a particular
decision. That is, the expert must be able to defend a decision to decision. That is, the expert must be able to defend a decision to
the community as a whole. the community as a whole.
In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no
specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the
presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless
there is a compelling reason not to. Possible reasons include: there is a compelling reason not to. Possible reasons include:
- scarcity of codepoints - scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints
should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number
of codepoints is made, when a single codepoint is the norm.
- documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure - documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure
interoperability interoperability
- the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the - the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the
extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally
understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and
would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the
intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a
personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant
differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security
model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message
type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed
systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar
result), etc. result), etc.
- the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. - the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
- the extension would conflict with one under active development by
the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster
interoperability.
4. Creating A Registry 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.
4.1. 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
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 (since IANA does not record
generally useful for interoperability. them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
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
lines in email messages. lines in email messages.
Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See 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, IP addresses 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 together
with any other required information that is specifically
required to be provided by the name space in question. 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 public specification, in sufficient detail so available public specification, in sufficient detail so
that interoperability between independent implementations that interoperability between independent implementations
is possible. [XXX: who assesses whether a non-RFC document is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies
is sufficiently clear for interoperability? IANA cannot.] useage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public
specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear
to allow interoperable implementations.
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
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 11, line 12
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 or as a IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a
"common case;" indeed, it has been seldom used in practice. "common case;" indeed, it has seldom been used in practice
Rather, it is intended to be available in conjunction with during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is
other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case where intended to be available in conjunction with other policies
one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a
reason. IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG
public review processes implied by other policies that Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review
could have been employed for a particular assignment. processes implied by other policies that could have been
employed for a particular assignment.
The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation
under IESG Approval: under IESG Approval:
- The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another - The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another
path is available that is more appropriate and allows path is available that is more appropriate and allows
broader community review broader community review
- before approving a request, the community should be - before approving a request, the community should be
consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as
much information as is reasonably possible. much information as is reasonably possible about the
request.
Except in unusual circumstances, the IESG is expected
[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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
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:
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 referred to in name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to in
future documents that need to allocate a value from the new future documents that need to allocate a value from the new
space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should
be provided. be provided. Ideally, the chosen name will not be easily
confusable with the name of another registry.
2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new 2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order
value. to assign a new value.
3) The process through which future assignments are made (see 3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a
Section 3.1). value from the namespace.
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 (see Section
3).
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 quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in
Section 3.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred
mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the
desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of
considerations should be taken into account by the review process. considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
Expert, but includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated
follow. 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 field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry
entitled "FooType values". Initial values for FooType field are entitled "FooType values". Initial values for the FooType
given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert registry are given below; future assignments are to be made
Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a name and through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist
the value. of a name and the value.
Name Value Definition Name Value Definition
---- ----- ---------- ---- ----- ----------
Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1 Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1
NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2 NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2
For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME- the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME-
LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575]. LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575].
4.3. 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 a 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 individual
Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [RFC1818]. name space. Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [IETF-
PROCESS].
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].
5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry 5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry
5.1. 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-
skipping to change at page 13, line 27 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
- 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.)
- 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 "TBDx" 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 inserted in in all of the relevant
places where the value is listed in the final document. For values places where the value is expected to be listed in the final docu-
that are text strings, a specific name can be suggested: IANA will ment. For values that are text strings, a specific name can be
assign the name, unless it conflicts with a name already in use. 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 - Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn'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 (together with the reason for the cific value should be used (together with the reason for the
choice. For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is choice). For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is
suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be
noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to
assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number
has already been assigned for some other use. has already been assigned for some other use.
For many registries, IANA also has a long-standing policy pro- For many registries, IANA also has a long-standing policy pro-
hibiting assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization hibiting assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization
name basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless name basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless
there is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this there is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this
document is intended to change those policies or prevent their document is intended to change those policies or prevent their
future application. 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 elsewhere in the
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is
include a summary table. generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also often
useful for this table to be in the format of the registry data in
the IANA site
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.
5.2. Maintaining Registrations 5.2. Maintaining Registrations
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 15, line 23
- 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 entity as having the right to - Designate the IESG or another entity as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration and any requirements or change the registrant associated with a registration and any
conditions on doing so. This is mainly to get around the problem requirements or conditions on doing so. This is mainly to get
when some registration owner cannot be reached in order to make around the problem when a registrant cannot be reached in order
necessary updates. to make necessary updates.
5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures
[XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is
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 properly documented procedures, or to intention is not to overrule properly documented procedures, or to
obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA
Considerations, but to permit assignments in individual cases where Considerations. Instead, the intention is to permit assignments in
it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, but updating individual cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just
the IANA process just to assign a particular code point is viewed as be made, but updating the IANA process just to assign a particular
too heavy a burden. In general, the IETF would like to see deficient code point is viewed as too heavy a burden. In general, the IETF
IANA registration procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF would like to see deficient IANA registration procedures for a
standards process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for namespace revised through the IETF standards process, but not at the
needed assignments. cost of unreasonable delay for needed assignments.
6. Miscellaneous Issues 6. Miscellaneous Issues
6.1. 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
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.] [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
or or
[RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.] [RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.]
6.2. Appeals 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
the IESG using the normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section using the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of
6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG,
the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB, etc.
6.3. 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.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated. authenticated and authorized.
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
security issues surrounding the use of a registered number. security issues surrounding the use of a registered number.
An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be
as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In 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 8. Open Issues
- It has been suggested that mailing lists associated with public
reviews (e.g., ietf-types) should be hosted by IETF servers and
should have public archives available. To what degree should we
have requirements? Should we have a policy, and should it be
documented here?
- Added text to "Specification Required" stating that an Expert will
be used to evaluate a spec for adequate "implementability". Is
this reasonable? [IANA can't do the evaluation, as they lack the
necessary time/expertise. So someone has to do it...]
- It would be good to get feedback on whether the examples of "good
IANA Considerations" that are cited are actually good, or whether
better ones are available.
9. 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".
- "Specification Required" now implies use of Designated Expert to
evaluate specs for sufficient clarity.
- no doubt other things... - no doubt other things...
8.1. Changes Relative to -00 9.1. 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.
8.2. Changes Relative to -02 9.2. Changes Relative to -02
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is - Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is
to make clear the Expert Reviewers are accountable to the com- to make clear the Expert Reviewers are accountable to the com-
munity, and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the munity, and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the
default case. default case.
- removed wording: "By virtue of the IAB's role as overseer of - removed wording: "By virtue of the IAB's role as overseer of
IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final
[IETF-PROCESS]." This document now makes no changes to existing [IETF-PROCESS]." This document now makes no changes to existing
appeal mechanisms relative to RFC 2026. appeal mechanisms relative to RFC 2026.
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA Considerations. This document is all about IANA Considerations.
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
From RFC 2434: This document has benefited from specific feedback from Marcelo
Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Spencer Dawkins, John Klensin,
Allison Mankin, Mark Townsley and Bert Wijnen.
The original acknowledgements section in RFC 2434 was:
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].
11. Normative References 12. Normative References
12. Informative References 13. 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 19, line 35 skipping to change at page 20, line 40
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 [RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake
3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September 3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September
2000. 2000.
[RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management [RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002. 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.
skipping to change at page 20, line 13 skipping to change at page 21, line 15
[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.
13. Authors' Addresses 14. 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
skipping to change at page 21, line 21 skipping to change at page 22, line 23
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 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES 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 (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
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 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 End of changes. 63 change blocks. 
125 lines changed or deleted 176 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/