idnits 2.17.1 draft-iesg-iana-considerations-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-25) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 21, 1997) is 9652 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: 'DHCP' is mentioned on line 207, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'DHCP-OPTIONS' is defined on line 318, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'MIME-LANG' is defined on line 327, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. 'ASSIGNED') (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-iesg-iana-considerations-01 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2184 (ref. 'MIME-LANG') (Obsoleted by RFC 2231) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2048 (ref. 'MIME-REG') (Obsoleted by RFC 4288, RFC 4289) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-ion-scsp-02 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1869 (ref. 'SMTP-EXT') (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten 3 IBM 4 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 5 UNINETT 6 November 21, 1997 8 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs 10 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 15 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 16 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 25 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 26 Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 27 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific 28 Rim). 30 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 32 This Internet Draft expires May 21, 1998. 34 Abstract 36 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 37 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and 38 deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., a new 39 option type in DHCP). To insure that such quantities have unique 40 values, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. 41 In the Internet, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned 42 Numbers Authority (IANA). 44 In order for the IANA to manage a given numbering space prudently, it 45 needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can 46 be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management 47 of a numbering space, the IANA must be given clear and concise 48 instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues 49 that should be considered in formulating an identifier assignment 50 policy and provides guidelines to document authors on the specific 51 text that must be included in documents that place demands on the 52 IANA. 54 Contents 56 Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 58 1. Introduction............................................. 3 60 2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4 62 3. Registration maintenance................................. 6 64 4. What To Put In Documents................................. 6 66 5. Security Considerations.................................. 8 68 6. References............................................... 8 70 7. Acknowledgements......................................... 9 72 8. Authors' Addresses....................................... 9 74 1. Introduction 76 Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other 77 well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or 78 MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has 79 been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be 80 assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP]). To insure that 81 such fields have unique values, their assignment must be administered 82 by a central authority. In the Internet, that role is provided by the 83 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 85 In order for the IANA to manage a given numbering space prudently, it 86 needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values 87 should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on 88 what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews 89 issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy 90 for assigning identifiers. 92 Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some 93 cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that 94 further assignments can be made independently and with no further 95 (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the 96 IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while 97 subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space 98 has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as 99 defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space 100 can be delegated, the IANA only deals with assignments at the top 101 level. 103 2. Issues To Consider 105 The primary issue to consider in managing a numbering space is its 106 size. If the space is small and limited in size, assignments must be 107 made carefully to insure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If 108 the space is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be 109 perfectly reasonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. 110 Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually 111 desirable to have a minimal review to prevent hoarding of the space. 112 For example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be 113 desirable to prevent organizations from obtaining large sets of 114 strings that correspond to the "best" names (e.g., existing company 115 names). 117 A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name 118 space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate, 119 as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments. 121 In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate, 122 and the first question to answer is who should perform the review. 123 In some cases, reviewing requests is straightforward and requires no 124 subject subjective decision making. On those cases, it is reasonable 125 for the IANA to review prospective assignments, provided that the 126 IANA is given specific guidelines on what types of requests it should 127 grant, and what information must be provided before a request of an 128 assigned number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not 129 define an assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines 130 that allow it to make allocation decisions with little subjectivity. 131 The following are example policies, some of which are in use today: 133 Free For All - For local use only, with the type and purpose 134 defined by the local site. No attempt is made to prevent 135 multiple sites from using the same value in different (and 136 incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA to review 137 such assignments and assignments are not generally useful 138 for interoperability. 140 Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have 141 significance only within a single site. 143 Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign 144 identifiers provided they have been given control over that 145 part of the identifier space. IANA controls the higher 146 levels of the namespace according to one of the other 147 policies. 149 Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers 151 First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an identifier, so long 152 as they provide a point of contact and a brief description 153 of what the identifier would be used for. For numbers, the 154 exact value is generally assigned by the IANA, with names, 155 specific names are usually requested. 157 Examples: vnd. MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP and UDP port 158 numbers. 160 Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be 161 documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily 162 available reference, in sufficient detail so that 163 interoperability between independent implementations is 164 possible. 166 Examples: SCSP [SCSP] 168 IESG Action - IESG must explicitly approve new values. 170 Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT] 172 Standards Action - Only identifiers that have been documented in 173 standards track RFCs approved by the IESG will be 174 registered. 176 Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG] 178 In some cases, it may be appropriate for the IANA to serve as a 179 point-of-contact for publishing information about numbers that have 180 been assigned, without actually having it evaluate and grant 181 requests. For example, it is useful (and sometimes necessary) to 182 discuss proposed additions on a mailing list dedicated to the purpose 183 (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for media types) or on a more general 184 mailing list on which (e.g., that of a current or former IETF Working 185 Group). Such a mailing list may serve to give new registrations a 186 public review before getting registered, or give advice for persons 187 who want help in understanding what a proper registration should 188 contain. 190 Since the IANA cannot participate in all of these mailing lists and 191 cannot determine if or when such discussion reaches a consensus, the 192 IANA will rely on a designated subject matter expert to advise it in 193 these matters. That is, the IANA must be directed to forward the 194 requests it receives to a specific point-of-contact (one or a small 195 number of individuals) and act upon the returned recommendation from 196 the designated subject matter expert. In all cases, it is the 197 designated subject matter expert that the IANA relies on for an 198 authoritative response. In those cases where wide review of a request 199 is needed, it is the responsibility of the designated subject matter 200 expert to initiate such a review (e.g., by engaging the relevant 201 mailing lists). In no cases will the IANA allow general mailing lists 202 (e.g., that of a former or existing IETF Working Group) to fill the 203 role of the designated subject matter expert. 205 In some cases, it makes sense to partition the number space into 206 several categories, with assignments out of each category handled 207 differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is split into 208 two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are globally unique 209 and assigned according to the Specification Required policy described 210 earlier, while options number 128-254 are "site specific", i.e., Free 211 For All. 213 3. Registration maintenance 215 Registrations sometimes contain information that needs to be 216 maintained; in particular, point of contact information may need to 217 be changed, claims of freedom from security problems may need to be 218 modified, or new versions of a registration may need to be published. 220 A document must clearly state who is responsible for such 221 maintenance. It is appropriate to: 223 - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same 224 constraints and review as with new registrations 226 - Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for 227 cases where others have significant objections to claims in a 228 registration, but the author does not agree to change the 229 registration. 231 - Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to 232 reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get 233 around the problem when some registration owner cannot be 234 reached in order to make necessary updates. 236 4. What To Put In Documents 238 The previous section presented some issues that should be considered 239 in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other 240 protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's 241 job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the 242 appropriate document. In some cases, having an "IANA Considerations" 243 section may be appropriate. Such a section should state clearly: 245 - who reviews an application for an assigned number. If a request 246 should be reviewed by a designated subject matter expert, 247 contact information must be provided. 249 - who has authority to replace the designated subject matter 250 expert, should a replacement be needed (e.g., if multiple 251 attempts to reach the designated subject matter fail). The 252 specific procedure to appoint the person should also be 253 indicated; it may often be appropriate to let the relevant IESG 254 Area Director designate the subject matter expert when a 255 replacement is necessary. 257 - If the request should also be reviewed by a specific public 258 mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types), 259 that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that a 260 designated subject matter expert must also be specified. 262 - if the IANA is expected to review requests itself, sufficient 263 guidance must be provided so that the requests can be evaluated 264 with minimal subjectivity. 266 It should also be noted that the following are unacceptable: 268 - listing a Working Group mailing list as the designated subject 269 matter expert 271 - specifying that "the current Working Group Chairs of the FooBar 272 Workin Group" are the designated subject matter experts, since 273 Working Groups eventually close down. However, it is acceptable 274 to list the current WG Chairs individually. 276 Finally, it is quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies 277 cited above and refer to it by name. For example, a document could 278 say something like: 280 numbers are allocated as First Come First Served as defined in 281 [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] 283 For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to 284 the IANA on the issue of assigning identifiers, consult [MIME-REG, 285 MIME-LANG]. 287 5. Security Considerations 289 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 290 authenticated. 292 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 293 protocol may change over time. Consequently, claims as to the 294 security properties of a registered protocol may change as well. As 295 new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such 296 vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations, so 297 that users are not mislead as to the true security properties of a 298 registered protocol. 300 An analysis of security issues is required for for all types 301 registered in the IETF Tree [MIME-REG]. A similar analysis for media 302 types registered in the vendor or personal trees is encouraged but 303 not required. However, regardless of what security analysis has or 304 has not been done, all descriptions of security issues must be as 305 accurate as possible regardless of registration tree. In particular, 306 a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this 307 type" must not be confused with "the security issues associated with 308 this type have not been assessed". 310 Delegations of a name space should only be assigned to someone with 311 adequate security. 313 6. References 315 [ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", October 316 1994k, RFC 1700. 318 [DHCP-OPTIONS] S. Alexander, R. Droms, DHCP Options and BOOTP 319 Vendor Extensions, RFC 2132, March 1997. 321 [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H., Narten, T., "Guidelines for 322 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft- 323 iesg-iana-considerations-01.txt. 325 [IP] J. Postel, Internet Protocol, RFC 791, September 1, 1981. 327 [MIME-LANG] Freed, N., Moore, K., "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded 328 Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and 329 Continuations", RFC 2184, August, 1997. 331 [MIME-REG] N. Freed, J. Klensin & J. Postel, Multipurpose Internet 332 Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures. 333 RFC 2048, November, 1996. 335 [SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G, Halpern, J., "Server Cache 336 Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)" draft-ietf-ion-scsp- 337 02.txt. 339 [SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., 340 Crocker, D.. "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, November 341 1995. 343 7. Acknowledgements 345 Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what 346 the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently. Brian 347 Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 348 document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was 349 borrowed from [MIME-REG]. 351 8. Authors' Addresses 353 Thomas Narten 354 IBM Corporation 355 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 356 PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 357 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 359 Phone: 919-254-7798 360 EMail: narten@raleigh.ibm.com 362 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 363 UNINETT 364 P.O.Box 6883 Elgeseter 365 N-7002 TRONDHEIM 366 NORWAY 368 Phone: +47 73 59 70 94 369 EMail: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no