< draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.txt   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.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 Google
March 6, 2005 September 15, 2006
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.txt> <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.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 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
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
protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA). Authority (IANA).
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be
be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management assigned, or when modifications to existing values can be made. If
of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space,
instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that
that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in
values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and
the specific text that must be included in documents that place provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that
demands on the IANA. must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.
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.......... 5
3. Designated Experts....................................... 5 3. Designated Experts....................................... 5
3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 6 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...................................... 9 4. Creating A Registry...................................... 9
4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 9 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..... 12
4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries.......... 13 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries.... 13
5. Registering Values In An Existing Registry............... 13 5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry........... 14
5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 13 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 14
5.2. Maintaining Registrations........................... 14 5.2. Updating Registrations.............................. 15
5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 15 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 15
6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 16 6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 16
6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 16 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 16
6.2. Appeals............................................. 16 6.2. Appeals............................................. 17
6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 16 6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 17
6.4. After-The-Fact Registrations........................ 17
6.5. Reclaiming Assigned Values.......................... 18
7. Security Considerations.................................. 17 7. Mailing Lists............................................ 18
8. Open Issues.............................................. 17 8. Security Considerations.................................. 19
9. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 18 9. Open Issues.............................................. 19
9.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 18
9.2. Changes Relative to -02............................. 18
10. IANA Considerations..................................... 19 10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................ 19
10.1. Changes Relative to -00............................ 20
10.2. Changes Relative to -02............................ 20
11. Acknowledgments......................................... 19 11. IANA Considerations..................................... 21
12. Normative References.................................... 19 12. Acknowledgments......................................... 21
13. Informative References.................................. 19 13. Normative References.................................... 21
14. Authors' Addresses.................................... 21 14. Informative References.................................. 21
15. Authors' Addresses...................................... 23
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 transform for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such
fields have consistent values and interpretations in different fields have consistent values and interpretations in different
implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU]. Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].
In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or
another kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name another kind of value. The binding or association of a specific value
space is called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each with a particular purpose within a name space is called an assigned
assignment of a number in a name space is called a registration. number (or assigned value, or sometimes a "code point" or "protocol
constant"). Each assignment of a value in a name space is called a
registration.
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values guidelines describing the conditions under which new values should be
should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on assigned, or when (and how) modifications to existing values can be
what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews made. This document provides guidelines to authors on what sort of
issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy text should be added to their documents in order to provide IANA
for assigning numbers to name spaces. clear guidelines and reviews issues that should be considered in
formulating an appropriate policy for assigning numbers to name
spaces.
Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some
cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
further assignments can be made independently and with no further further assignments can be made independently and with no further
(central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while
subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space
has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]; IANA manages the
can be delegated, the scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the subtree rooted at "iso.org.dod.internet" (1.3.6.1) . When a name
space is 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 '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. protocol documents within 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 will essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion will
probably 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 prior to assignment 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 values. 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 entities from obtaining large sets of strings desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
that correspond to the "best" names (e.g., existing company that correspond to desirable names (e.g., existing 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 an 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 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 avoid future interoperability problems
problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail. [PROTOCOL-EXT].
In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited and there are In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited and there are
no potential interoperability issues; in such cases assigned numbers no potential interoperability issues; in such cases assigned numbers
can safely be given out to anyone. When no subjective review is can safely be given out to anyone. When no subjective review is
needed, the IANA can make assignments directly, provided that the needed, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is
IANA is given specific instructions on what types of requests it given specific instructions on what types of requests it should
should grant, and what information must be provided as part of the grant, and what information must be provided as part of a well-formed
request for an assigned number. request for an assigned number.
It should be noted that the IANA does not create or define assignment 3. Designated Experts
3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts
It should be noted that IANA does not create or define assignment
policy itself; rather, it carries out policies that have been defined 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 by others, i.e., in RFCs. IANA must be given a set of guidelines
that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity
and without requiring any technical expertise with respect to the and without requiring any technical expertise with respect to the
protocols that make use of a registry. protocols that make use of a registry.
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 what is and the question becomes who should perform the review and what is
the purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an the purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an
IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should
be 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
important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For
example, many assignments are not just assignments, but also involve example, some assignments are not just assignments, but also involve
an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields
that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may
not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base
protocols on which they are built. 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 to persons wanting 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
feedback, 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, IANA cannot participate
participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such
when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA relies on discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated
a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters. The expert" to advise it in the specific question of whether an
designated expert is a single individual who is responsible for assignment should be made. The designated expert is a single
carrying out an appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation individual who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate
to IANA. evaluation and returning a recommendation 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 for the IETF to provide IANA with a single-person subject experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a single-person subject
matter expert to which it can delegate the evaluation process to, matter expert to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA
with that person informing IANA whether the assignment is to be made. forwards requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and
the expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA whether or
IANA effectively delegates evaluating the request to the IETF's not to make the assignment.
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 with the protocol that creates or uses
management of the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of
[RFC3748,RFC3575,XXX] for examples that have been done for specific [RFC3748,RFC3575] for examples that have been done for specific name
name spaces). spaces).
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions
to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to
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 applicable documented review or vetting procedures,
may apply, or in the absence of documented criteria, follow or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally-accepted
generally-accepted norms, e.g., those in section 3.3. 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 (normally 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 creating or updating a name space is
approved by the IESG, 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 eight 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 for those
when products need code points to ship. This is not to say that needing assignments, such as when products need code points to
all reviews can be completed under a firm deadline, but they must ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed under a
be started, and the requester and IANA should have some firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester and
transparency into the process if an answer cannot be given IANA should have some transparency into the process if an answer
quickly. cannot be given quickly.
- if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within - if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within
a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or to explain a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or with a
that the requests are particularly complex, and if this is a reasonable explanation for a delay (e.g., some requests may be
recurring event, the IANA must raise the issue with the IESG. particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must
Because of the problems caused by delayed evaluations and raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by
assignments, the IESG should take appropriate actions, such as delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take
ensuring that the expert understands their responsibilities, or appropriate actions, such as ensuring that the expert understands
appointing a new expert. and accepts their responsibilities, or appointing a new expert.
- The designated expert is not required to personally bear the - 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. That is, the expert
decision. That is, the expert must be able to defend a decision to 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 to deny a
request include:
- scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints - scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints
should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number
of codepoints is made, when a single codepoint is the norm. 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 15
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 extension would conflict with one under active development by
the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster
interoperability. 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
together with an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and created, 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, use of these terms is RECOMMENDED 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 (since IANA does not record IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record
them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
interoperability. interoperability.
skipping to change at page 9, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 7
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 - Assignments are made to anyone on a
long as they provide a point of contact and a brief first come, first served bases. There is no substantive
description of what the value would be used for together review of the request, other than to ensure that it is
with any other required information that is specifically well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment.
required to be provided by the name space in question. For However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical
numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA; information, such as a a point of contact and a brief
with names, specific text strings are usually requested. description of what the value would be used for. Additional
information specific to the type of value requested may
also need to be provided, as defined by the name space. For
numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by IANA;
with names, specific text strings can usually be requested.
Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG].
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. For example, see
Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748].
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. When used, Specification Required also implies is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies
useage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public usage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public
specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear
to allow interoperable implementations. to allow interoperable implementations. The intention
behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document
can be reasonably be expected to easily be found long after
RFC publication.
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 (or WG) Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is
document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed
IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if
working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed suitable working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the
assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or proposed assignment will not negatively impact
otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an
damaging manner. inappropriate or damaging manner.
To ensure adequate community review, such documents are To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored documents with shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored documents with
an IETF Last Call. 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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 20 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
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 seldom been used in practice "common case;" indeed, it has seldom been used in practice
during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is
intended to be available in conjunction with other policies intended to be available in conjunction with other policies
as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a
timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG
Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review
processes implied by other policies that could have been processes implied by other policies that could have been
employed for a particular assignment. employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would
be appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is
desired and there is strong consensus for making the
assignment (e.g., WG consensus).
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 there is
broader community review no compelling reason to bypass normal 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 about the much information as is reasonably possible about the
request. request.
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 multiple categories, with assignments within each category
handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is handled differently. For example, many protocols now partition name
split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are spaces into two (or even more) parts, where one range is reserved for
globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required Private or Experimental Use, while other ranges are reserved for
policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site globally unique assignments assigned following some review process.
specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it Dividing a name space into ranges makes it possible to have different
possible to have different policies in place for different ranges. policies in place for different ranges.
4.2. 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 values in name spaces. It is
protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's the Working Group and/or document author's job to formulate an
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the appropriate policy and specify it in the appropriate document. In
appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Considerations" section is
Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections appropriate. The following subsections define what is needed for the
define what is needed for the different types of IANA actions. 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 IANA to play a role in maintaining
maintaining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
values) MUST provide clear instructions on details of the name space. provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In
In particular, instructions MUST include: 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. Ideally, the chosen name will not be easily be provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be
confusable with the name of another registry. easily confusable with the name of another registry.
2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order 2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order
to assign a new value. to assign a new value.
3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a 3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a
value from the namespace. 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 (see Section when mailing lists are specified, a Designated Expert MUST also
3). be specified (see Section 3).
If the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an If 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 (ore more) of the example policies
Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred listed in Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the
mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the preferred mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide
desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the 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 specific additional criteria the Designated Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated
Expert should 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 defines an 8-bit FooType field,
field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry entitled
entitled "FooType values". Initial values for the FooType "FooType values". Initial values for the FooType registry are
registry are given below; future assignments are to be made given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert
through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a FooType
of a name and the value. name and its associated value.
Name Value Definition FooType 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- IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-LANG, RFC3757,
LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575]. RFC3749, RFC3575, RFC3968].
4.3. Updating Guidelines In Existing Registries 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries
Updating the registration process for an existing name space is Updating the registration process for an already existing (i.e.,
similar to that used when creating a new namespace. That is, a previously created) name space (whether created explicitly or
document is produced that makes reference to the existing namespace implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when creating a
and then provides detailed management guidelines for each individual new namespace. That is, a document is produced that makes reference
name space. Such documents are normally processed as BCPs [IETF- to the existing namespace and then provides detailed guidelines for
PROCESS]. handling assignments in each individual 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 New 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, documents request an assignment from an already existing name
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub- space (i.e., one created by a previously-published RFC). In such
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear: 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? It is helpful
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC to use the exact name space name as listed on the IANA web page
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men- (and defining RFC), and cite the RFC where the name space is
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that defined. (Note: There is no need to mention what the assignment
should be clear from the references.) policy for new assignments is, as that should be clear from the
references.)
- For each value being requested, give it a unique name. When the - For each value being requested, give it a unique reference. When
value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout the value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Through-
the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled out the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be
in, use the "TBDx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC filled in, use the "TBDx" notation. This helps ensure that the
has the correct assigned value inserted in in all of the relevant final RFC has the correct assigned values inserted in in all of
places where the value is expected to be listed in the final docu- the relevant places where the value is expected to appear in the
ment. For values that are text strings, a specific name can be final document. For values that are text strings, a specific name
suggested: IANA will assign the name, unless it conflicts with a can be suggested. IANA will normally assign the name, unless it
name already in use. 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 some registries, IANA has a longstanding policy prohibiting
hibiting assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization name
name basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless there
there is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this docu-
document is intended to change those policies or prevent their ment is intended to change those policies or prevent their future
future application. 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 elsewhere in the actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the
document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is
generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also often 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 useful for this table to be in the format of a registry data as it
the IANA site should appear on the IANA web 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. Updating 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 48 skipping to change at page 16, line 19
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. Instead, the intention is to permit assignments in Considerations. Instead, the intention is to permit assignments in
individual cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just individual cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just
be made, but updating the IANA process just to assign a particular be made, but updating the IANA process just to assign a particular
code point is viewed as too heavy a burden. In general, the IETF code point is viewed as too heavy a burden.
would like to see deficient IANA registration procedures for a
namespace revised through the IETF standards process, but not at the In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA registration
cost of unreasonable delay for needed assignments. procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF standards
process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for needed
assignments. If the IESG has had to take the action in this section,
it is a strong indicator that the IANA registration procedures should
be updated, possibly in parallel with ongoing protocol work.
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
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.
This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted
after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be
true. true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without
careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA
actions being performed.
If a specification makes use of values from a name space that is not
managed by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, e.g., with
wording such as:
The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo
registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document
has no IANA Actions.
In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered
valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be
considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may
be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made
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 Appeals on registration decisions made by IANA can be appealed using
using the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of
[IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG,
followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB, etc. 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 IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evaluation
evaluation policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide
continue to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always
policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus 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 IANA to
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines register or otherwise manage name space assignments MUST provide
for managing the name space. guidelines for managing the name space.
7. Security Considerations 6.4. After-The-Fact Registrations
Occasionally, IANA becomes aware that an unassigned value from a
managed name space is in use on the Internet, or that an assigned
value is being used for a different purpose than originally
registered. IANA will not condone such misuse, i.e., procedures of
the type described in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In
the absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be
reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original
assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of
such a reassignment.
6.5. Reclaiming Assigned Values
Reclaiming previously-assigned values for reuse is tricky, because
doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems
still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely
difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use
of a particular value. However, in cases where the name space is
running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it
may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When reclaiming
unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be considered:
- attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a
value is assigned, to determine how widely used a value is. (In
some cases, products were never shipped or have long ceased being
used. In other cases, it may be known that a value was never
actually used at all.)
- reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence
of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions
should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value
is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs
the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG approval is
needed in this case.
- it may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit
comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF
process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed
some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942]
7. Mailing Lists
All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing
assignment requests as described in this document are subject to
whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are
currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision.
8. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated and authorized. authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to
instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept
clarifications from document authors and relevant WG chairs.
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 IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be as
as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In 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. Open Issues 9. Open Issues
- It has been suggested that mailing lists associated with public - the security considerations section seems out of whack with
reviews (e.g., ietf-types) should be hosted by IETF servers and reality and existing practice. Which registries actually talk
should have public archives available. To what degree should we about security implications? Is this a common thing to do? Should
have requirements? Should we have a policy, and should it be security issues be discussed in published RFCs instead?
documented here?
- Added text to "Specification Required" stating that an Expert will - Added text to "Specification Required" stating that an Expert will
be used to evaluate a spec for adequate "implementability". Is be used to evaluate a spec for adequate "implementability". Is
this reasonable? [IANA can't do the evaluation, as they lack the this reasonable? [IANA can't do the evaluation, as they lack the
necessary time/expertise. So someone has to do it...] necessary time/expertise. So someone has to do it...] Note:
Consensus seems to be yes.
- It would be good to get feedback on whether the examples of "good - It would be good to get additional feedback on whether the
IANA Considerations" that are cited are actually good, or whether examples of "good IANA Considerations" that are cited are actually
better ones are available. good, or whether better ones are available.
9. Changes Relative to RFC 2434 10. 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. (History has shown that people see the words "IETF
Consensus" and know what that means; in contrast, the term has a
specific definition within this document.)
- 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 - "Specification Required" now implies use of Designated Expert to
evaluate specs for sufficient clarity. evaluate specs for sufficient clarity.
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is to
make clear that Expert Reviewers are accountable to the community,
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.
- Added section about reclaiming unused value.
- Added a section on after-the-fact registrations.
- no doubt other things... - no doubt other things...
9.1. Changes Relative to -00 [RFC Editor: please remove the "changes relative to individual
drafts" below upon publication.]
- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear. 10.1. Changes Relative to -00
9.2. Changes Relative to -02 - Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is 10.2. Changes Relative to -02
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 - Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is
to make clear the Expert Reviewers are accountable to the
community, 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 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.
10. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA Considerations. This document is all about IANA Considerations.
11. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from specific feedback from Marcelo This document has benefited from specific feedback from Marcelo
Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Spencer Dawkins, John Klensin, Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Barbara Denny, Spencer Dawkins, Paul
Allison Mankin, Mark Townsley and Bert Wijnen. Hoffman, John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Mark Townsley and Bert Wijnen.
The original acknowledgements section in RFC 2434 was: The original acknowledgments 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 IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently
patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document. provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian
Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 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].
12. Normative References 13. Normative References
13. Informative References 14. 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 20, line 37 skipping to change at page 22, line 45
Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996. Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache [SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache
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", [PROTOCOL-EXT] "Procedures for protocol extensions and variations",
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt
[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.
[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed., RFC 3748, June, 2004.
[RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005. [RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005.
[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.
14. Authors' Addresses [RFC3942] "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version
4 (DHCPv4) Options", B. Volz. RFC 3942, November
2004
[RFC3968] "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field
Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)," G. Camarillo. RFC 3968, December
2004.
15. Authors' Addresses
Thomas Narten Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave. 3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
Phone: 919-254-7798 Phone: 919-254-7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com EMail: narten@us.ibm.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems Google
5245 Arboretum Dr
Los Altos, CA
USA
Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 End of changes. 100 change blocks. 
250 lines changed or deleted 361 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/