idnits 2.17.1 draft-atwood-pim-reserve-exp-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 03, 2014) is 3679 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) == Missing Reference: 'URL' is mentioned on line 81, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4601 (Obsoleted by RFC 7761) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PIM W. Atwood 3 Internet-Draft Concordia University/CSE 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Venaas 5 Expires: September 4, 2014 Cisco 6 March 03, 2014 8 IANA Allocation of Experimental Code Points for PIM Join Attribute and 9 PIM Encoded-Source Address 10 draft-atwood-pim-reserve-exp-00 12 Abstract 14 This memo asks the IANA to allocate experimental code points to the 15 PIM Join Attribute Types register and the Encoded-Source Address 16 Encoding Type Field register. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2014. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 1. Introduction 62 To make it possible to experiment with protocol extensions safely, 63 [RFC3692] recommends that "protocol documents should consider 64 reserving a small set of protocol numbers for experimentation." 66 Two IANA registries related to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) 67 do not reserve any numbers for experimentation. 69 This document requests the IANA to reserve two numbers for the 70 Registry "PIM Join Attribute Types" and four numbers for the 71 "Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field". 73 1.1. Terminology 75 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 76 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 77 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 79 2. Background 81 In the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters [URL] Protocol 82 Registry, two sub-registries have no allocation for either Private or 83 Experimental use. They are "Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type 84 Field", for which the current definitions are given in [RFC4601] and 85 [RFC5384], and "PIM Join Attribute Types", for which the current 86 definitions are given in [RFC5384]. 88 For the Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field, two values area 89 assigned, and the remainder (2-255) are unassigned. 91 For the PIM Join Attribute Types, four values are assigned, and the 92 remainder (4-63) are unassigned. 94 The remaining sub-registries all have values assigned for Private 95 Use, for Experimental Use, or for extension of the type space. 97 The registrations proposed in this document are of type Experimental 98 [RFC5226], because the expected usage of these reservations would not 99 likely be confined to a single site. 101 3. Security Considerations 103 This document only assigns values in two IANA registries. The 104 security implications of the use of these values must be considered 105 by those who make use of them. 107 4. IANA Considerations 109 The requests in this document are for two registries that are part of 110 the "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters" Registry. 112 This document requests the IANA to reserve four values in the 113 "Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field" registry: 115 Type Name Reference 116 ---- ---- --------- 117 251-255 Reserved (Experimental) [RFC4601][RFC5384][this doc] 119 This document requests the IANA to reserve two values in the "PIM 120 Join Attribute Types" registry: 122 Type Name Reference 123 ---- ---- --------- 124 64-65 Reserved (Experimental) [RFC5384][this doc] 126 5. Acknowledgements 128 Adrian Farrel and Brian Haberman observed that there were no 129 reservations for Experimental Use for the PIM Join Attribute Type. 131 6. References 133 6.1. Normative References 135 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 136 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 138 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, 139 "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 140 Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. 142 [RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol 143 Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC 144 5384, November 2008. 146 6.2. Informative References 148 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 149 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 151 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 152 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 153 May 2008. 155 Authors' Addresses 157 William Atwood 158 Concordia University/CSE 159 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd, West 160 Montreal, QC H3G 1M8 161 Canada 163 Phone: +1(514)848-2424 ext3046 164 Email: william.atwood@concordia.ca 165 URI: http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill 167 Stig Venaas 168 Cisco 169 170 West Tasman Drive 170 San Jose, CA 95134 171 USA 173 Email: stig@cisco.com