idnits 2.17.1 draft-iana-rfc2754-to-historic-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2754, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2754 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 8, 2011) is 4798 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-arch-12 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2754 (Obsoleted by RFC 6254) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. McFadden 3 Internet-Draft ICANN 4 Obsoletes: 2754 (if approved) March 8, 2011 5 Intended status: Informational 6 Expires: September 9, 2011 8 Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status 9 draft-iana-rfc2754-to-historic-02 11 Abstract 13 RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it 14 was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally 15 sign them. The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in 16 software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System. 17 In practice, this was never done on the public Internet. This 18 document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to historic status. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2011. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 1. Introduction 67 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is 68 charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols 69 which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet 70 Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the 71 IANA create a repository of Routing Policy System Language (RPSL) 72 objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the initial 73 objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an 74 address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them 75 as well. In practice, this was never done in the public Internet. 76 During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration activities 77 in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was identified 78 as one of those that had not been completed after publication of the 79 RFC. 81 This document obsoletes RFC 2754 [RFC2754], recommends that it be 82 moved to historic status, and directs IANA to not move forward with 83 the IANA Actions in that RFC. 85 2. Details 87 RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the IANA create a repository of RPSL 88 objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the initial 89 objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an 90 address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them 91 as well. 93 During a review of RFCs in 2009 it became apparent that the IANA 94 actions requested in RFC 2754 were never done. In the intervening 95 time, another technology appears to be taking the role once 96 envisioned for Distributed RPSL. Both an architecture 97 [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch] and infrasturucture now exist for secure 98 rounting using Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) 99 technologies. As an example, the semantics of a Route Origin 100 Authorization (ROA) - an application of the RPKI 101 [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-validation] - to validate the origination of 102 routes has been standardized by the IETF. 104 Implementation of the IANA actions in RFC 2754 would now require 105 significant implementation complexity. In the face of alternative 106 technology, and given that the requested actions have not been 107 implemented in the public Internet, it is proposed to reclassify RFC 108 2754 [RFC2754] as historic and to direct the IANA not to pursue or 109 implement the IANA requests in that document. 111 3. Terminology 113 The word "allocation" designates a block of addresses managed by a 114 registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations. The 115 word "assignment" designates a block of addresses, or a single 116 address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or 117 set of networks. 119 4. IANA Considerations 121 IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the IANA actions 122 requested in RFC 2754. [RFC2754] 124 5. Security Considerations 126 The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took 127 place in the public Internet. Moving RFC 2754 [RFC2754] to historic 128 status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet. 130 6. Acknowledgments 132 The author would like to thank Alfred Hines, Russ Housley, Leo 133 Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu, Michelle Cotton 134 and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments. 136 7. References 138 7.1. Normative References 140 [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch] 141 Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support 142 Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-12 (work in 143 progress), February 2011. 145 [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-validation] 146 Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route 147 Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and ROAs", 148 draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10 (work in progress), 149 November 2010. 151 7.2. Informative References 153 [RFC2754] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, "RPS 154 IANA Issues", RFC 2754, January 2000. 156 Author's Address 158 Mark McFadden 159 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 160 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 161 Marina del Rey 90292 162 United States 164 Phone: +1-608-628-2674 165 Email: mark.mcfadden@icann.org 166 URI: http://www.iana.org