idnits 2.17.1 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01.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 172. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 183. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 190. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 196. 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 (December 31, 2007) is 5955 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: July 3, 2008 December 31, 2007 8 IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field 9 draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update-01 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 July 3, 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 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 RFC 2780 Section 4.3 rule [RFC2780] with 100 the 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 of RFC 2780. That rule refers to the rule in 107 Section 4.3 of the same RFC. However, from now on this reference 108 should be understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without 109 the Expert Review option. 111 3. Security Considerations 113 This specification does not change the security properties of the 114 affected protocols. 116 4. Acknowledgments 118 Issues with the original RFC 2780 rules were uncovered in discussions 119 of the IETF - IANA team. The team also provided background 120 information on the practical difficulties encountered with non- 121 disclosure agreements. The authors would like to thank Thomas 122 Narten, Bill Fenner, and Michelle Cotton in particular. 124 5. References 126 5.1. Normative References 128 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 129 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 130 October 1998. 132 [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For 133 Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", 134 BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000. 136 5.2. Informative References 138 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 139 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 141 Authors' Addresses 143 Jari Arkko 144 Ericsson 145 Jorvas 02420 146 Finland 148 Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net 150 Scott Bradner 151 Harvard University 152 Cambridge, MA 02138 153 US 155 Phone: +1 617 495 3864 156 Email: sob@harvard.edu 158 Full Copyright Statement 160 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 162 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 163 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 164 retain all their rights. 166 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 167 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 168 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 169 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 170 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 171 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 172 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 174 Intellectual Property 176 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 177 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 178 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 179 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 180 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 181 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 182 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 183 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 185 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 186 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 187 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 188 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 189 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 190 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 192 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 193 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 194 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 195 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 196 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 198 Acknowledgment 200 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 201 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).