idnits 2.17.1 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 170. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 181. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 188. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 194. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2780, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2780 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2780, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-07-19) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 5, 2007) is 6017 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Arkko 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 2780 (if approved) S. Bradner 5 Intended status: Standards Track Harvard University 6 Expires: May 8, 2008 November 5, 2007 8 IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field 9 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-00 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2008. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 40 Abstract 42 This document revises the IANA guidelines for allocating new Protocol 43 field values in IPv4, as well as new Next Header field values in 44 IPv6. It modifies the rules specified in RFC 2780 by removing the 45 Expert Review option. 47 1. Introduction 49 This document revises the IANA guidelines for allocating new Protocol 50 field values in IPv4. The same guidelines will also apply for IPv6 51 Next Header values. 53 Previously, RFC 2780 allowed such allocations to happen through IESG 54 Approval, Standards action, or Expert Review processes 55 [RFC2780, RFC2434]. The Expert Review process was specified to be 56 used only in the case where a non-disclosure agreement was involved: 58 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 59 an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. The 60 Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases 61 where non- disclosure information is involved. In these cases the 62 expert(s) should be designated by the IESG. 64 The need for the Standards Action rule is obvious as the IETF keeps 65 developing new protocols. It is equally obvious that there is a need 66 to allow experimental allocations in this space, see RFC 4727 67 [RFC4727] for an example. Similarly, there are cases when it makes 68 sense to allocate values out of this space for other non- Standards 69 Track or non-IETF uses. However, the size of the field is 256 70 values, and 55% of these were in use at the time this document was 71 written. As a result, a sanity check is needed to ensure that 72 allocations are not made needlessly. RFC 2780 specifies the IESG 73 Approval rule to take care of these sanity checks for the non- 74 Standards Track cases. The judgment call can take into account the 75 existence of a stable protocol specification, constituency that wants 76 to use it, need to avoid duplicated allocations for the same purpose, 77 whether protocol number allocation is the right solution for this 78 problem as opposed to, say, a TCP port, and so on. 80 However, we now believe that the non-disclosure agreement option is 81 not appropriate for allocations in this space. Traditionally, non- 82 disclosure agreements have been used by the IANA when a company was 83 developing a proprietary protocol and did not want to disclose new 84 areas of research or future products. The protocol space is limited 85 enough that we no longer believe that it is reasonable to use of the 86 resource for such proprietary protocols. Thus, we believe that 87 allocations should only be made using the IESG Approval or Standards 88 Action processes when there are public specifications that can be 89 reviewed. 91 As a result, this document revises the RFC 2780 rules by removing the 92 option for Expert Review for the IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header 93 fields. This document takes no position on the allocation of other 94 parameters with non-disclosure agreements, as those parameters may 95 require different policies. 97 2. IANA Considerations 99 This document replaces the current rule in section 4.3 with the 100 following: 102 IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following 103 an IESG Approval or Standards Action process. 105 This document makes no change to the rule for the IPv6 Next Header 106 field in Section 5.3 but notes that the rule in section 4.3 that is 107 referred to is the revised one without the Expert Review option. 109 3. Security Considerations 111 This specification does not change the security properties of the 112 affected protocols. 114 4. Acknowledgments 116 Issues with the original RFC 2780 rules were uncovered in discussions 117 of the IETF - IANA team. The team also provided background 118 information on the practical difficulties encountered with non- 119 disclosure agreements. The authors would like to thank Thomas 120 Narten, Bill Fenner, and Michelle Cotton in particular. 122 5. References 124 5.1. Normative References 126 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 127 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 128 October 1998. 130 [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For 131 Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", 132 BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000. 134 5.2. Informative References 136 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 137 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 139 Authors' Addresses 141 Jari Arkko 142 Ericsson 143 Jorvas 02420 144 Finland 146 Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net 148 Scott Bradner 149 Harvard University 150 Cambridge, MA 02138 151 US 153 Phone: +1 617 495 3864 154 Email: sob@harvard.edu 156 Full Copyright Statement 158 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 160 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 161 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 162 retain all their rights. 164 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 165 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 166 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 167 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 168 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 169 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 170 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 172 Intellectual Property 174 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 175 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 176 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 177 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 178 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 179 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 180 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 181 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 183 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 184 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 185 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 186 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 187 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 188 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 190 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 191 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 192 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 193 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 194 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 196 Acknowledgment 198 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 199 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).