idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 06, 2014) is 3490 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'XXX' is mentioned on line 214, but not defined -- Duplicate reference: RFC2860, mentioned in 'RFC2860', was also mentioned in 'MOUSUP'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6220 (Obsoleted by RFC 8722) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft R. Housley, Ed. 4 Intended status: Informational October 06, 2014 5 Expires: April 09, 2015 7 Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals 8 on IANA 9 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 11 Abstract 13 This document contains the a draft response to a request for 14 proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 15 regarding the protocol parameters registries. It is meant to be 16 included in an aggregate proposal that also includes contributions 17 covering names and addresses that will be submitted from their 18 respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to 19 comment and propose changes to this document. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 09, 2015. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 58 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 59 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 60 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 63 1. IETF Introduction 65 In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information 66 Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of 67 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. In that 68 announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 69 and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal for 70 transition. As part of that process, the IANA Stewardship Transition 71 Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. They solicited proposals 72 regarding the respective functions that IANA performs, in order that 73 they may put forth a proposal to the NTIA. 75 While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and 76 IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol 77 registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an 78 introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 79 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal 80 response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a 81 questionnaire we have quoted questions with ">>> " and we have 82 prefaced answers to questions being asked with "IETF Response:". 83 Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions 84 asked in order to match the RFC format. 86 As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included 87 in a footnote in the original propsoal. 89 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 90 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/ 91 iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions 92 traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SAC-067 93 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] provides 94 one description of the many different meanings of the term "IANA" and 95 may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the 96 agreement itself. 98 2. The Formal RFP Response 100 Introduction 102 NOTE: This section is taken in its entirety from the questionnaire 103 dated 8 September 2014. 105 Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) 106 Charter [ICG-CHARTER], the ICG has four main tasks: 108 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA 109 stewardship transition, including the three "operational 110 communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service 111 relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names, 112 numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of: 114 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 115 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 116 affected by the IANA functions 117 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities 118 for compatibility and interoperability 119 (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition 120 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 122 This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG 123 Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non- 124 operational communities. 126 0. Complete Formal Responses 128 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks 129 complete formal responses to this RFP from the "operational 130 communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service 131 relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with 132 names, numbers, or protocol parameters). 134 Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all 135 interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the 136 operational communities are requested to consult and work with other 137 affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its 138 light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly 139 encouraged to participate in community processes. 141 The following link provides information about ongoing community 142 processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to 143 be updated over time: 145 https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community 147 Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in 148 developing their responses, so that all community members may fully 149 participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also 150 asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any 151 other parties with interest in their response. 153 A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to 154 reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to 155 produce a single plan for the transition of IANA stewardship. 156 Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those elements that are 157 considered to be truly essential to the transition of their specific 158 IANA functions. 160 The target deadline for all complete formal responses to this RFP is 161 15 January 2015. 163 I. Comments 165 While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals from the 166 operational communities only, and that all interested parties get 167 involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, 168 some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about 169 specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community 170 processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be 171 directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg- 172 forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived at . 175 Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to 176 the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will 177 review comments received as time and resources permit and in 178 accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is, 179 comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until 180 those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may 181 establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in the 182 future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been 183 received. 185 Required Proposal Elements 187 The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that 188 contains the elements described in this section. 190 Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the 191 sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the 192 suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily 193 assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to 194 allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to 195 provide further information in explanatory sections, including 196 descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated references 197 to source documents of specific policies/practices. In this way, the 198 responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the operational 199 level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities. 201 In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should 202 cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions 203 Contract[NTIA-Contract] when describing existing arrangements and 204 proposing changes to existing arrangements. 206 >>> 207 >>> 0. Proposal Type 208 >>> 209 >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this 210 >>> submission proposes to address: 211 >>> 213 IETF Response: 214 [XXX] Protocol Parameters 216 This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also 217 represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF. 219 >>> 220 >>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 221 >>> 222 >>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services 223 >>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service 224 >>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the 225 >>> following: 226 >>> A description of the service or activity. 227 >>> 229 IETF Response: 231 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. 232 These parameters are used by implementers, who are the IETF's primary 233 users of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure 234 consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent 235 implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these 236 IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available 237 registry containing the parameter values and a pointer to 238 documentation of the associated semantic intent. The IETF uses the 239 IANA protocol parameter registries to implement such registries. 241 >>> 242 >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. 243 >>> 245 IETF Response: 247 The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the Internet 248 Engineering Task Force (IETF). 250 The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is 251 to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are 252 published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible for the key 253 standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP, 254 DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few. 256 The IETF operates an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The 257 processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. 258 The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That 259 document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how 260 disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a 261 number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX]. 262 The standards process can be amended in the same manner that 263 standards are approved. That is, someone proposes a change by 264 submitting a temporary document known as an Internet-Draft, the 265 community discusses it, and if rough consensus can be found the 266 change is approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), 267 who also have day-to-day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus 268 on technical decisions, including those that affect IANA. Anyone may 269 propose a change during a Last Call, and anyone may participate in 270 the community discussion. 272 >>> 273 >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or 274 >>> activity. 275 >>> 277 IETF Response: 279 The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work. 280 Administration of the protocol parameter registries is the service 281 that is provide to the IETF. 283 >>> 284 >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 285 >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 286 >>> communities 287 >>> 289 IETF Response: 291 It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to 292 participate, including anyone from ICANN or the regional Internet 293 registries (RIRs), and many people from those organizations regularly 294 do. 296 o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with 297 regard to domain names. These registries require coordination 298 with the Generic Names Support Organization (GNSO). We already 299 perform this coordination.[RFC6761] 301 o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have 302 been and will be updates to that protocol. We will continue to 303 coordinate with ICANN regarding those changes. 305 o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should 306 those requirements change, we will inform ICANN. 308 o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to 309 continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on 310 appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that 311 happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done 312 in the past. 314 o The IETF has established registries with IANA for special IPv4 and 315 IPv6 assignments. These are specified in [RFC6890]. The IETF 316 coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. 318 o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and 319 service providers. A recent example is the expansion of the BGP 320 community field from 16 to 32 bits.[RFC6793] It is important to 321 note that this change occurred out of operational necessity, and 322 it demonstrated strong alignment between the RIRs and the IETF. 324 >>> III. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 325 >>> 326 >>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related 327 >>> arrangements work, prior to the transition. 328 >>> 329 >>> A. Policy Sources 330 >>> 331 >>> 332 >>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy 333 >>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its 334 >>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there 335 >>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for 336 >>> different IANA activities, then please describe these 337 >>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development, 338 >>> please provide the following: 339 >>> 340 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 341 >>> affected. 342 >>> 344 IETF Response: The protocol parameters registry. 346 >>> 347 >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and 348 >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. 349 >>> 351 IETF Response: 353 Policy for overall management of the registries is stated in RFCs in 354 [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents explains the 355 model for how the registries are to be operated, how policy is set, 356 and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the policies that 357 specification writers may employ when they define new protocol 358 registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each 359 specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the 360 form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If 361 there is sufficient interest, the Internet Engineering Steering Group 362 may choose to create a working group or an Area Director may choose 363 to sponsor the draft. In either case, anyone may comment on the 364 proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG 365 unless it enjoys sufficient community support as to indicate rough 366 consensus [RFC7282] In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that 367 there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or process. 368 Anyone may comment during a Last Call. 370 >>> 371 >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 372 >>> 374 IETF Response: 376 Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working 377 group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any 378 action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict 379 resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area 380 Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an 381 appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where an someone claims 382 that the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some 383 way to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the 384 Internet Society Board of Trustees. 386 >>> 387 >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute 388 >>> resolution processes. 389 >>> 391 IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a 392 conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working 393 group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been 394 amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. Please also 395 see the references at the bottom of this document. 397 >>> 398 >>> B. Oversight and Accountability 399 >>> 400 >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 401 >>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the 402 >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 403 >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for 404 >>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or 405 >>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the 406 >>> following as are applicable: 407 >>> 408 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 409 >>> affected. 410 >>> 412 IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries. 414 >>> 415 >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are 416 >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. 417 >>> 419 IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters 420 registry have been specified in II.A. 422 >>> 423 >>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight 424 >>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals 425 >>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities. 426 >>> 428 IETF Response: 430 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the 431 IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming 432 appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, 433 management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general 434 architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must 435 approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf 436 of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing liaison 437 relationships with other orgnaizations on behalf of the IETF. The 438 IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850]. 440 The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating 441 Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. This 442 process provides for selection of active members of the community who 443 themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. Those candidates are 444 sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In 445 general, members serve for two years. The IAB selects its own chair. 447 The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameter registries of 448 the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) 449 and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships 450 among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in 451 conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded 452 that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is 453 currently ICANN. 455 >>> 456 >>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting 457 >>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a 458 >>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator 459 >>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the 460 >>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and 461 >>> the terms under which the mechanism may change. 462 >>> 464 IETF Response: 466 A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF 467 community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in 468 [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA 469 staff for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), a 470 peer organization to the IETF that focuses on research. Each year a 471 service level agreement is negotiated that supplements the MoU. 473 Day-to-day administration and contract management is the 474 responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF 475 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. IAOC 476 members are appointed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees, the 477 IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with ICANN 478 to establish annual IANA performance metrics and operational 479 procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to 480 the MoU each year [MOUSUP]. 482 To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the 483 unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC 484 and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The 485 MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the 486 arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only 487 be undertaken after serious consideration. 489 >>> 490 >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal 491 >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. 492 >>> 494 IETF Response 496 Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction are 497 immaterial. 499 >>>IV. Proposed changes to IANA Activities/Services 501 >>> 502 >>> This section should describe what changes your community is 503 >>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of 504 >>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or 505 >>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that 506 >>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed 507 >>> in Section II.B should be described for the new 508 >>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and 509 >>> justification for the new arrangements. 510 >>> 511 >>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for 512 >>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those 513 >>> implications should be described here. 514 >>> 515 >>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements 516 >>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that 517 >>> choice should be provided here. 518 >>> 520 IETF Response: 522 No changes are required, as over the years since the creation of 523 ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of 524 agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that covers what is 525 needed. 527 First and foremost, IANA protocol parameter registry updates will 528 continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last 529 decade or more. The IETF community is quite satisfied with the 530 current arrangement with ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has 531 served the IETF community very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an 532 appropriate service description and requirements. 534 Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding 535 principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter 536 registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is 537 not significant. 539 1. The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and 540 continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community. 542 The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within 543 the Internet technical community are both important given how 544 critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF 545 protocols. 547 We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameter registry 548 function needs to be strong enough that they can be offered 549 independently by the Internet technical community, without the need 550 for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are 551 there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and 552 continuous improvements are being made. 554 2. The protocol parameter registry function requires openness, 555 transparency, and accountability. 557 Existing documentation of how the function is administered and 558 overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and 559 clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet 560 community can understand how the function works, and that the 561 processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee 562 the protocol parameter function accountable for following those 563 processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed 564 to making improvements here if necessary. 566 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameter registry 567 function should respect existing Internet community agreements. 569 The protocol parameter registry is working well. The existing 570 Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the technical work 571 to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on 572 behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet 573 Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol parameter 574 registry function should be made using the IETF process to update RFC 575 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: evolution, not 576 revolution. 578 4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service 579 by Internet registries. 581 The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not 582 just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and 583 other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined 584 protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards 585 development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/ 586 number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special- 587 use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. 588 The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other 589 parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation 590 of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work 591 together. 593 5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter 594 registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards 595 process and the use of resulting protocols. 597 RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters 598 registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF 599 protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to 600 define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry 601 operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and 602 management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as 603 management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines 604 for parameter allocation. 606 6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public 607 service. 609 Directions for the creation of protocol parameter registries and the 610 policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. 611 The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and 612 they are published in a form that allows their contents to be 613 included in other works without further permission. These works 614 include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet 615 protocols and their associated documentation. 617 These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF 618 community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA 619 performance metrics and operational procedures. 621 >>> IV Transition Implications 623 >>> 624 >>> This section should describe what your community views as the 625 >>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 626 >>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other 627 >>> implications specific to your community: 628 >>> 629 >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity 630 >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout 631 >>> the transition. 632 >>> o Risks to operational continuity 633 >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the 634 >>> absence of the NTIA contract 635 >>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 636 >>> workability of any new technical or operational methods 637 >>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established 638 >>> arrangements. 639 >>> 641 IETF Response: 643 No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will 644 guide IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with 645 ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational 646 procedures, as they have in the past. 648 As no services are expected to change, no continuity issuees are 649 anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods 650 proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the 651 RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen 652 issues that might arise as a result of other changes. 654 >>> 655 >>> V. NTIA Requirements 656 >>> 657 >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal 658 >>> must meet the following five requirements: 659 >>> 660 >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" 661 >>> 663 IETF Response: 665 Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies 666 and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above. In- 667 person attendance is not required for participation, and many people 668 participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF 669 meeting. An email account is the only requirement to participate. 670 The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication 671 to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder 672 ecosystem. 674 >>> 675 >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the 676 >>> Internet DNS;" 677 >>> 679 IETF Response: 681 The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries. 682 As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very 683 well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.[METRICS] 684 Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best 685 protected by maintaining the current service in its current form. 687 >>> 688 >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 689 >>> partners of the IANA services;" 690 >>> 692 IETF Response: 694 Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the 695 IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameter registries. 696 The current IANA protocol parameter registry system is meeting the 697 needs of these global customers. This proposal continues to meet 698 their needs by maintaining the existing processes that have served 699 them well in the past. 701 >>> 703 >>> 704 >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." 705 >>> 707 IETF Response: 709 This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows 710 anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including 711 the IANA protocol parameter registry policies. Further, an 712 implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol 713 specification published n the RFC series and the protocol parameter 714 registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in 715 the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as 716 specified by the existing policies for those registries. 718 {We will have an open discussion, make changes based on that 719 discussion, and then conduct a Last Call to confirm that there is 720 rough consensus for the proposal.} 722 >>> 723 >>> VI. Community Process 724 >>> 725 >>> This section should describe the process your community used for 726 >>> developing this proposal, including: 727 >>> 728 >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to 729 >>> determine consensus. 730 >>> 732 IETF Response: 734 The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this 735 response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate 736 in the development of this response. An open mailing list 737 (ianaplan@ietf.org) was associated with the working group. In 738 addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader 739 community, and all input is welcome. 741 >>> 742 >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 743 >>> meeting proceedings. 744 >>> 746 IETF Response: [xxx to be completed in more detail] 748 The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open 749 discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the 750 past few months. 752 Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: http://w 753 ww.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12978.html 755 Announcement of a public session on the transition: http:// 756 www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13028.html 758 Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group: 759 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/ 760 msg13170.html 762 >>> 763 >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 764 >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 765 >>> disagreement. 766 >>> 768 IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses. 770 3. IANA Considerations 772 This memo is a response a request for proposals. No parameter 773 allocations or changes are sought. 775 4. Security Considerations 777 While the IANA framework has shown strong resiliency, the IETF will 778 continue to work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements 779 in our standards. 781 5. Acknowledgments 783 This document does not define new processes, and so it seems we 784 acknowledge all of the preceding IAB members and members of the 785 community who developed the processes that we describe. The initial 786 version of this document was developed collaboratively through both 787 the IAB IANA Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular 788 thanks go to Jari Arkko, John Klensin, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew 789 Sullivan, Leslie Daigle, Barry Leiba, Brian Carpenter, and Greg Wood. 791 6. Informative References 793 [ICG-CHARTER] 794 , "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 795 (ICG) Charter", , . 798 [METRICS] , "Performance Standards Metrics Report", , 799 . 801 [MOUSUP] , "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of 802 Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)", , 803 . 805 [NTIA-Contract] 806 , "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", , . 810 [RFC-INDEX] 811 RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC 812 Index, August 2014. 814 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 815 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 817 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 818 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 820 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 821 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 822 May 2000. 824 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 825 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 826 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 828 [RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational 829 Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area 830 Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001. 832 [RFC3595] Wijnen, B., "Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 833 3595, September 2003. 835 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and 836 Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 837 Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. 839 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 840 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 841 4071, April 2005. 843 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 844 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 845 May 2008. 847 [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., 848 Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and 849 Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", 850 RFC 6220, April 2011. 852 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 853 RFC 6761, February 2013. 855 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 856 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December 857 2012. 859 [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St. 860 Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", 861 RFC 6852, January 2013. 863 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 864 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 865 6890, April 2013. 867 [RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 868 7282, June 2014. 870 Authors' Addresses 872 Eliot Lear (editor) 873 Richtistrasse 7 874 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 875 Switzerland 877 Phone: +41 44 878 9200 878 Email: lear@cisco.com 879 Russ Housley (editor) 880 918 Spring Noll Drive 881 Herndon, VA 20170 882 USA 884 Email: housley@vigilsec.com