idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-iana-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 9 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' IANA Considerations. Such lists are designated for the purpose' ) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 41 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 13, 2002) is 7805 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC2850' on line 149 == Unused Reference: '10' is defined on line 379, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3232 (ref. '4') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '9' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '10' Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Architecture Board G. Huston, Editor 3 Internet-Draft Internet Architecture Board 4 Document: draft-iab-iana-00.txt December 13, 2002 5 Category: BCP 6 Expires: June 13, 2003 8 Defining the Role and Function of the IETF-IANA 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 26 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2003. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are 40 passed within protocol objects. To ensure consistent interpretation 41 of these values between independent implementations, there is a need 42 to ensure that the values and associated semantic intent are uniquely 43 defined. The IETF uses a registry function to record these protocol 44 values and their associated semantic intent. In this memo the 45 registry function is referred to as the IETF Internet Assigned 46 Numbers Authority (IETF- IANA). This document provides a description 47 of this function. 49 1. Introduction 51 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are 52 passed within protocol objects. To ensure consistent interpretation 53 of these values between independent implementations, there is a need 54 to ensure that the values and associated semantic intent are uniquely 55 defined. The IETF uses a single registry to register these protocol 56 values and their associated semantic intent. Historically, this 57 registry is referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 58 (IANA). In this context the IANA function has included both the 59 registration of protocol-specific identifier values (e.g. TCP 60 parameters) as well as the registration of various numbering and name 61 resources that are used within public Internet networks (e.g. IPv4 62 address allocations). In this document a distinction is drawn 63 between the registration of protocol parameters for protocols defined 64 in IETF RFCs, and other IANA functions. The new term to describe the 65 IETF-related activity is the "IETF-IANA". The document describes 66 this IETF-IANA function as it applies to the IETF Internet Standards 67 Process. [1] 69 2. Definition of IETF-IANA 71 The Internet Standards document, STD 2, published in October 1994, 72 defined the role of the IANA as follows: 74 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the central 75 coordinator for the assignment of unique parameter values for 76 Internet protocols. The IANA is chartered by the Internet Society 77 (ISOC) and the Federal Network Council (FNC) to act as the 78 clearinghouse to assign and coordinate the use of numerous 79 Internet protocol parameters. 81 The Internet protocol suite, as defined by the Internet 82 Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its steering group (the IESG), 83 contains numerous parameters, such as internet protocol addresses, 84 domain names, autonomous system numbers (used in some routing 85 protocols), protocol numbers, port numbers, management information 86 base object identifiers, including private enterprise numbers, and 87 many others. 89 The common use of the Internet protocols by the Internet community 90 requires that the particular values used in these parameter fields 91 be assigned uniquely. It is the task of the IANA to make those 92 unique assignments as requested and to maintain a registry of the 93 currently assigned values. [2] 95 The definition of the IETF-IANA role is provided in BCP 26: 97 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 98 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined 99 and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned 100 (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or 101 authentication algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such 102 quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different 103 implementations, their assignment must be administered by a 104 central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by 105 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). [3] 107 3. Publication of IETF-IANA Assignments 109 The current mode of publication of IETF-IANA assignments is described 110 in the Informational Document RFC 3232 [4], published in January 111 2002: 113 From November 1977 through October 1994, the Internet Assigned 114 Numbers Authority (IANA) periodically published tables of the 115 Internet protocol parameter assignments in RFCs entitled, 116 "Assigned Numbers". The most current of these Assigned Numbers 117 RFCs had Standard status and carried the designation: STD 2. At 118 this time, the latest STD 2 is RFC 1700. 120 Since 1994, this sequence of RFCs have been replaced by an online 121 database accessible through a web page (currently, www.iana.org). 122 The purpose of the present RFC is to note this fact and to 123 officially obsolete RFC 1700, whose status changes to Historic. 124 RFC 1700 is obsolete, and its values are incomplete and in some 125 cases may be wrong. [4] 127 4. The Procedures related to IETF-IANA Parameter Management 129 IETF-IANA actions are defined through the inclusion of an "IANA 130 Considerations" section in Internet Standards documents, as described 131 in RFC 2434 [3]. There are also RFCs that specifically address IANA 132 considerations for particular protocols, such as RFC 2780 [5], RFC 133 2939 [6], and RFC 2978 [7]. 135 5. The Operation of the IETF-IANA 137 As documented in the IAB Charter [8], the role of the Internet 138 Architecture Board includes responsibility for the IANA function. 139 Specifically, the IAB, acting on behalf of the IETF, approves the 140 appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF, 141 and also approves the terms and conditions of this delegation of the 142 IANA function. 144 The IANA has a non-voting liaison with the IAB to facilitate clear 145 communications and effective operation of the IETF-IANA function. 147 The technical direction of the IANA with respect to IETF-IANA is 148 provided by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). 149 [RFC2850] The IETF-IANA has a non-voting liaison with the IESG to 150 facilitate clear communications and effective operation of the IETF- 151 IANA function. 153 6. Current IETF-IANA Protocol Parameter Assignments 155 The list of current IETF-IANA protocols for which parameter 156 assignments are registered by IETF-IANA is listed in reference [9]. 158 With reference to the IETF-IANA, the protocol parameters that are 159 excluded from the scope of the IETF-IANA role are the registration of 160 unicast IPv4 address blocks, unicast IPv6 address blocks, Autonomous 161 System blocks, and top level delegations within the Domain Name 162 System, as they are considered to be outside the scope of the IETF- 163 IANA as defined in Section 2 of this document. 165 7. A Description of the Operation and Responsibilities of the IETF- IANA 167 This section describes the operation and role of the Internet 168 Engineering Task Force - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IETF- 169 IANA), and the roles of related bodies with reference to the IETF- 170 IANA function. 172 7.1 Introduction 174 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 175 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and 176 deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a 177 new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication 178 algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such quantities have consistent 179 values and interpretations in different implementations, their 180 assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF 181 protocols, that role is provided by the IETF-IANA. 183 7.2 IETF-IANA Role 185 The IETF-IANA is a function undertaken under the auspices of the 186 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). 188 The roles of the IETF-IANA are as follows: 190 - Review and Advise 192 The IETF-IANA reviews Internet-Drafts that are being considered 193 by the Internet Engineering Task Force Steering Group (IESG), 194 with the objective of offering advice to the IESG regarding the 195 need for an IANA Considerations section, whether such a 196 section, when required, is clear in terms of direction to IETF- 197 IANA and whether the section is consistent with the current 198 published IETF-IANA Guidelines. 200 - Registry 202 The IETF-IANA operates a registry of protocol parameter 203 assignments. 205 The IETF-IANA registers Internet protocol parameters only as 206 directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, 207 including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best 208 Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for 209 IANA assignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of 210 ambiguity, IETF-IANA will continue to assign and register 211 Internet protocol parameters that have traditionally been 212 registered by IANA in the past, following past and current 213 practice for such assignments, unless otherwise directed by the 214 IESG. 216 This registry includes: 218 + all protocol parameters that are managed by IETF-IANA, 220 + for each protocol parameter, a reference to the RFC document 221 that describes the parameter and the associated IANA 222 Considerations concerning the parameter, and 224 + for each registration of a protocol parameter, the source of 225 the registration and the date of the registration. 227 If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the IETF-IANA 228 will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively from the 229 IESG. Where appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to 230 advise IANA. 232 The IETF-IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing 233 criteria and procedures over time, which the IETF-IANA will 234 adopt when so instructed by the IESG. 236 The registry operates as a public registry, and the contents of 237 the registry are openly available to the public, on-line and 238 free of charge. 240 The IETF-IANA assigns protocol parameter values in accordance 241 with the policy associated with the protocol parameter. (Some 242 policies are listed in RFC2434. [3]) 244 - Mailing Lists 246 The IETF-IANA operates public mailing lists as specified in 247 IANA Considerations. Such lists are designated for the purpose 248 of review of assignment proposals in conjunction with a 249 designated expert review function. 251 - Liaison 253 The IETF-IANA designates an individual to act as a non-voting 254 liaison to the IAB. 256 The IETF-IANA designates an individual to act as a non-voting 257 liaison to the IESG. The IETF-IANA liaises with the IESG 258 regarding the provision of advice to the IESG on IETF protocol 259 parameters as well as the IANA Considerations section of 260 Internet-drafts that are being reviewed for publication as an 261 RFC. 263 - Reporting 265 The IETF-IANA will submit periodic reports to the IAB 266 concerning IETF-IANA operational performance of the registry 267 function. 269 The IETF-IANA will undertake periodic reports to the IETF 270 Plenary concerning the status of the IETF- IANA role. 272 The IETF-IANA will publish an annual report describing the 273 status of the IETF-IANA function and a summary of performance 274 indicators. 276 - Intellectual Property Rights and the IETF-IANA 277 IETF-IANA assigned values are published and made available free 278 of any charges and free of any constraints relating to further 279 redistribution, with the caveat that the IETF-IANA assignment 280 information may not be modified in any redistributed copy. 282 Any intellectual property rights of IETF-IANA assignment 283 information, including the IETF-IANA registry and its contents, 284 are to be held by the IETF and ISOC, and all IETF-IANA 285 publications relating to assignment information are to be 286 published under the terms of Section 10 of RFC2026, and are to 287 include the copyright notice as documented in Section 10.4 (C) 288 of RFC2026. [1] 290 7.3 IAB role 292 The IETF-IANA is a function undertaken under the auspices of the 293 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). 295 The IAB has the responsibility to, from time to time, review the 296 current description of the IETF-IANA function and to adopt amendments 297 relating to its role and mode of operation of the IETF-IANA according 298 to the best interests of the IETF. 300 The IAB has the responsibility to select an organization to undertake 301 the delegated functions of the IETF-IANA. 303 The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions 304 of this delegated role. Such terms and conditions should ensure that 305 the IETF-IANA operates in a manner that is fully conformant to the 306 functions described in this document. In addition, such terms and 307 conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF 308 with respect to the IETF-IANA function. 310 The IETF-IANA designates a non-voting liaison to the IAB to 311 facilitate clear communications and effective operation of the IETF- 312 IANA function. 314 7.4 IESG Role 316 The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF-IANA. 317 Such technical direction is provided through the adoption of IETF RFC 318 documents within the "IANA Considerations" section of such documents, 319 or as stand-alone "IANA Considerations" RFC documents. 321 The IESG shall ensure that the review of Internet-Drafts that are 322 offered for publications as RFCs ensures that IANA Considerations 323 sections are present when needed, and that IANA Considerations 324 sections conform to the current published guidelines. 326 The IETF-IANA designates a non-voting liaison to the IESG to 327 facilitate clear communications and effective operation of the IETF- 328 IANA function. 330 7.5 Internet Society Role 332 Any intellectual property rights of IETF-IANA assignment information, 333 including the IETF-IANA registry and its contents, and all IETF-IANA 334 publications, are to be held by the Internet Society on behalf of the 335 IETF. 337 8. Acknowledgement 339 This document is adapted from RFC2434 [3], and has been modified to 340 include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights, and the 341 roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF-IANA function. 343 The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided 344 by reviewers of earlier drafts of this document, including Scott 345 Bradner. 347 9. References 349 [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", 350 RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996. 352 [2] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, STD 353 2, October 1994. 355 [3] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 356 Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, BCP 26, October 357 1998. 359 [4] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On- 360 line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002. 362 [5] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For 363 Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", RFC 2780, 364 BCP 37, March 2000. 366 [6] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of 367 New DHCP Options and Message Types", RFC 2939, BCP 43, 368 September 2000. 370 [7] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration 371 Procedures", RFC 2978, BCP 19, October 2000. 373 [8] Carpenter, B., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board 374 (IAB)" BCP39, RFC 2850, May 2000. 376 [9] "IANA Protocol Numbers and Assignment Services" available online 377 as http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm 379 [10] Correspondence from Esther Dyson, Interim Chairman, ICANN to 380 Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter and Fred Baker of the IETF, Feb 381 25 1999, http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bradner- 382 dyson-25feb99.htm 384 10. Security Considerations 386 This document does not propose any new protocols, and therefore does 387 not involve any security considerations in that sense. 389 Author 391 Internet Architecture Board 392 EMail: iab@iab.org 394 IAB Membership at time this document was completed: 395 Harald Alvestrand 396 Ran Atkinson 397 Rob Austein 398 Fred Baker 399 Leslie Daigle 400 Steve Deering 401 Sally Floyd 402 Ted Hardie 403 Geoff Huston 404 Charlie Kaufman 405 James Kempf 406 Eric Rescorla 407 Mike St. Johns