idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-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 RFC6220, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6220 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 (October 18, 2018) is 2009 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4371 (Obsoleted by RFC 8714) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Architecture Board(IAB) D. McPherson, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed. 4 Obsoletes: 6220 (if approved) ISOC 5 Intended status: Informational J. Klensin, Ed. 6 Expires: April 21, 2019 7 G. Huston, Ed. 8 APNIC 9 IAB 10 October 18, 2018 12 Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry 13 Operators 14 draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-02 16 Abstract 18 Many Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocols make use of 19 commonly defined values that are passed in messages or packets. To 20 ensure consistent interpretation of these values between independent 21 implementations, there is a need to ensure that the values and 22 associated semantic intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses 23 registry functions to record assigned protocol parameter values and 24 their associated semantic intentions. For each IETF protocol 25 parameter, it is current practice for the IETF to delegate the role 26 of Protocol Parameter Registry Operator to a nominated entity. This 27 document provides a description of, and the requirements for, these 28 delegated functions. 30 [Cover Note] 32 [The IASA2 WG asks the IAB to publish this replacement for RFC 6220. 33 This document is changed for alignment with the new structure for the 34 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). ] 36 Status of This Memo 38 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 39 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 41 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 42 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 43 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 44 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 46 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 47 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 48 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 49 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 51 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2019. 53 Copyright Notice 55 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 56 document authors. All rights reserved. 58 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 59 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 60 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 61 publication of this document. Please review these documents 62 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 63 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 64 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 65 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 66 described in the Simplified BSD License. 68 Table of Contents 70 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter 72 Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role . . . . . . . . 4 74 2.2. IAB Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 2.3. IESG Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 2.4. Role of the IETF Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 2.5. Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability 78 Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 3. Miscellaneous Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 81 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 82 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 Appendix B. IAB members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 Appendix C. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 86 C.1. Version Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 C.1.1. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 88 C.1.2. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 89 C.1.3. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 90 C.2. RCS information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 93 1. Overview 95 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are 96 passed within messages or packets. To ensure consistent 97 interpretation of these values between independent implementations, 98 there is a need to ensure that the values and associated semantic 99 intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses registries to record each 100 of the possible values of a protocol parameter and their associated 101 semantic intent. These registries, their registration policy, and 102 the layout of their content are defined in the so-called "IANA 103 Considerations" sections of IETF documents. 105 The organizational separation between the IETF and its Registry 106 Operators parallels ones that are fairly common among standards 107 development organizations (SDOs) although less common among 108 technology consortia and similar bodies. These functions have been 109 separated into different organizations for several reasons. They 110 include dealing with administrative issues, addressing concerns about 111 maintaining an adequate distance between basic policy and specific 112 allocations, and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest that 113 might arise from commercial or organizational relationships. For 114 example, most ISO and ISO/IEC JTC1 standards that require 115 registration activities specify a Registration Authority (RA) or 116 Maintenance Agency (MA) that, in turn, control the actual 117 registration decisions. The databases of what is registered for each 118 standard may then be maintained by a secretariat or database function 119 associated with the RA or MA or, less frequently, by the secretariat 120 of the body that created and maintains the standard itself. 122 This structural separation of roles exists within several places in 123 the IETF framework (e.g., the RFC Editor function). The Internet 124 Architecture Board (IAB), on behalf of the IETF, has the 125 responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the 126 Protocol Registry Operator role. This responsibility includes the 127 selection and management of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, 128 as well as management of the parameter registration process and the 129 guidelines for parameter allocation. 131 As with other SDOs, although it may delegate authority for some 132 specific decisions, the IETF asserts authority and responsibility for 133 the management of all of its protocol parameters and their 134 registries, even while it generally remains isolated from the 135 selection of particular values once a registration is approved. This 136 document describes the function of these registries as they apply to 137 individual protocol parameters defined by the IETF Internet Standards 138 Process [RFC2026] to allow for an orderly implementation by the IETF 139 Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), and others as 140 needed, under guidance from the IAB. 142 Below we provide a description of the requirements for these 143 delegated functions, which the IETF traditionally refers to as the 144 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function. 146 2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter 147 Registries 149 The IETF's longstanding practice is to outsource the management and 150 implementation of some important functions (e.g., 151 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis]). The protocol parameter registry 152 function falls into this category of outsourced functions, and what 153 follows here is the description of the roles and responsibilities 154 with respect to the registration of IETF protocol parameters. 156 Specifically, this document describes the operation and role of a 157 delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, to be selected 158 and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) 159 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-struct]. While there is generally a single Protocol 160 Parameter Registry Operator, additional Operators may be selected to 161 implement specific registries, and that has been done occasionally. 162 Having a single Operator facilitates coordination among registries, 163 even those that are not obviously related, and also makes it easier 164 to have consistency of formats and registry structure, which aids 165 users of the registries and assists with quality control. 167 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 168 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and 169 deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a 170 new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication 171 algorithm for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent 172 values and interpretations in different implementations, their 173 assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF 174 protocols, that role is provided by a delegated Protocol Parameter 175 Registry Operator. For any particular protocol parameter there is a 176 single delegated Registry Operator. 178 2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role 180 The IETF Protocol Parameter Registry function is undertaken under the 181 auspices of the Internet Architecture Board. 183 The roles of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator are as follows: 185 o Review and Advise 187 * A Registry Operator may be requested to review Internet-Drafts 188 that are being considered by the Internet Engineering Steering 189 Group (IESG), with the objective of offering advice to the IESG 190 regarding the contents of the "IANA Considerations" section, 191 whether such a section, when required, is clear in terms of 192 direction to the Registry Operator, and whether the section is 193 consistent with the current published Registry Operator 194 guidelines. 196 o Registry 198 * To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments. 200 * The delegated Registry Operator registers values for Internet 201 protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and 202 procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft, and 203 full Internet Standards, Best Current Practice documents, and 204 other RFCs that require protocol parameter assignment. 206 If values for Internet protocol parameters were not specified, 207 or in case of ambiguity, the Registry Operator will continue to 208 assign and register only those protocol parameters that have 209 already been delegated to the Operator, following past and 210 current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise 211 directed in terms of operating practice by the IESG. In the 212 case of ambiguity, the Registry Operator is expected to 213 identify the ambiguity to the IAB or IESG as appropriate and 214 either suggest better text or ask the appropriate parties for 215 clarification. 217 * For each protocol parameter, the associated registry includes: 219 + a reference to the RFC document that describes the parameter 220 and the associated "IANA Considerations" concerning the 221 parameter, and 223 + for each registration of a protocol parameter value, the 224 source of the registration and the date of the registration, 225 if the date of registration is known, and 227 + any other information specified as being included in the 228 registration data in the RFC document that describes the 229 parameter. 231 + If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the Registry 232 Operator will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively 233 from the IESG. Where appropriate, the IESG will appoint an 234 expert to advise the Registry Operator. 236 * The Registry Operator will work with the IETF to develop any 237 missing criteria and procedures over time, which the Registry 238 Operator will adopt when so instructed by the IESG. 240 * Unless special circumstances apply to subsets of the data and 241 specific rules are established by IETF consensus, each protocol 242 parameter registry operates as a public registry, and the 243 contents of the registry are openly available to the public, 244 on-line and free of charge. 246 * The Registry Operator assigns protocol parameter values in 247 accordance with the policy associated with the protocol 248 parameter, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review" 249 [RFC8126]. 251 o Mailing Lists 253 * The Registry Operator maintains public mailing lists as 254 specified in IANA Considerations [RFC8126]. Such lists are 255 designated for the purpose of review of assignment proposals in 256 conjunction with a designated expert review function. In 257 addition, each Protocol Parameter Registry Operator should 258 maintain a mailing list that enables the registry staff of the 259 Registry Operator to be contacted by email. 261 o Liaison Activity 263 * The Registry Operator will nominate a liaison point of contact. 264 The Registry Operator, through this liaison, may be requested 265 to provide advice to the IESG on IETF protocol parameters as 266 well as the "IANA Considerations" section of each Internet- 267 Draft that is being reviewed for publication as an RFC. Where 268 appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the 269 Registry Operator. 271 o Reporting 273 * The Registry Operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB 274 concerning the operational performance of the registry 275 function. As an example of the requirements for such reports, 276 the reader is referred to a supplement [MoU_SUPP2018] to the 277 "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of 278 the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC2860] that 279 provides service level agreement (SLA) guidelines under which 280 ICANN, the current protocol parameter registry, must operate. 282 * At the request of the chair of the IETF or IAB, or the IETF 283 Executive Director [I-D.ietf-iasa2-struct], the Registry 284 Operator will undertake periodic reports to IETF Plenary 285 meetings, or elsewhere as they may direct, concerning the 286 status of the registry function. 288 * The Registry Operator will publish an annual report describing 289 the status of the function and a summary of performance 290 indicators. 292 o Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator 294 * All assigned values are to be published and made available free 295 of any charges. 297 * The assignment values may be redistributed without 298 modification. 300 * Any intellectual property rights of the IETF protocol parameter 301 assignment information, including the IETF protocol parameter 302 registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust 303 (BCP 101, currently [RFC4071] [RFC4371]). 305 2.2. IAB Role 307 An Operator of an IETF protocol parameter registry undertakes the 308 role as a delegated function under the authority of the IAB. 310 The IAB has the responsibility to review the current description of 311 the registry function from time to time and direct the Registry 312 Operator to adopt amendments relating to its role and mode of 313 operation according to the best interests of the IETF and the 314 Internet community in general. 316 The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to 317 undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter Registry 318 Operator for each IETF protocol parameter. Specifically, the IAB 319 defines the role and requirements for the desired functions. The 320 IETF LLC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor, and once 321 under agreement, managing the various aspects of the relationships 322 with that vendor. To be clear, the IAB is in the deciding role 323 (e.g., for appointment and termination), but must work in close 324 consultation with the IETF LLC. 326 The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions 327 of this delegated role. Such terms and conditions should ensure that 328 the registry operates in a manner that is fully conformant to the 329 functions described in this document. In addition, such terms and 330 conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF 331 with respect to the registry contents and maintenance. 333 2.3. IESG Role 335 The IESG is responsible for the technical direction regarding entries 336 into IETF protocol parameter registries and maintaining the policies 337 by which such technical directions are given. Technical direction 338 itself is provided through the adoption of directives within the 339 "IANA Considerations" section of IETF Stream RFCs or through stand- 340 alone "IANA Considerations" RFCs. 342 The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts that are offered for 343 publication as IETF Stream RFCs [RFC4844] include "IANA 344 Considerations" sections when needed, and that "IANA Considerations" 345 sections conform to the current published guidelines. 347 Since technical assessment is not generally a responsibility of the 348 Registry Operator, as part of providing the technical direction the 349 IESG is responsible for identifying the technical experts that are 350 required to, where appropriate, review registration requests or 351 resolve open technical questions that relate to the registration of 352 parameters. 354 At its discretion, the IESG will organize the liaison activities with 355 the Registry Operator's liaison point of contact so as to facilitate 356 clear communications and effective operation of the registry 357 function. 359 2.4. Role of the IETF Trust 361 The IETF Trust [RFC4371] was formed to act as the administrative 362 custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights 363 relating to the IETF Standards Process, a function that had 364 previously been performed by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the 365 Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). 367 Any intellectual property rights of IETF protocol parameter 368 assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and 369 all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf 370 of the IETF. 372 The IETF Trust may make such regulations as appropriate for the 373 redistribution of assignment values and registry publications. 375 2.5. Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company 377 The IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) 378 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-struct] is responsible for identifying a potential 379 vendor in a manner of its choosing, based on IAB consultation, and 380 for managing the various aspects of the relationships with that 381 vendor. 383 In addition, the IETF LLC has the responsibility to ensure long-term 384 access, stability, and uniqueness across all such registries. This 385 responsibility is of particular significance in the event that a 386 relation with a Protocol Parameter Registry Operator is terminated. 388 3. Miscellaneous Considerations 390 While this document has focused on the creation of protocols by the 391 IETF, the requirements provided are generically applicable to the 392 extended IETF community as well (e.g., Internet Research Task Force 393 (IRTF)). 395 The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF 396 Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies by which 397 such technical directions are given. The IESG is responsible, as 398 part of the document approval process associated with the IETF Stream 399 RFCs [RFC4844], for "IANA Considerations" verification. For the 400 other RFC streams, the approval bodies are responsible for verifying 401 that the documents include "IANA Considerations" sections when 402 needed, and that "IANA Considerations" sections conform to the 403 current published guidelines. In the case that IANA considerations 404 in non-IETF document streams lead to a dispute, the IAB makes the 405 final decision. 407 This document talks about "Registry Operator" (singular), and while 408 there are stability and economy-of-scale advantages for one single 409 Operator, this document does not exclude having different Operators 410 for different protocol registries when justified by the 411 circumstances. 413 4. Security Considerations 415 This document does not propose any new protocols and does not 416 introduce any new security considerations. 418 5. IANA Considerations 420 This document requires no direct IANA actions in terms of the 421 creation or operation of a protocol parameter registry. However, 422 this document does define the roles and responsibilities of various 423 bodies who are responsible for, and associated with, the operation of 424 protocol parameter registration functions for the IETF. 426 6. Informative References 428 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis] 429 Kolkman, O., Halpern, J., and R. Hinden, "RFC Editor Model 430 (Version 2)", draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01 (work in 431 progress), August 2018. 433 [I-D.ietf-iasa2-struct] 434 Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Record of 435 Proposed Structure of the IETF Administrative Support 436 Activity (IASA), Version 2.0", draft-ietf-iasa2-struct-06 437 (work in progress), September 2018. 439 [MoU_SUPP2018] 440 "ICANN/IANA-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement, 2018". 442 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 443 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 444 . 446 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 447 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 448 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, 449 DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, 450 . 452 [RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the 453 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, 454 RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005, 455 . 457 [RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for 458 IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, 459 January 2006, . 461 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 462 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 463 July 2007, . 465 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 466 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 467 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 468 . 470 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 471 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 472 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 473 . 475 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 477 This document was originally adapted from "Guidelines for Writing an 478 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], and has been modified 479 to include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights and the 480 roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF Protocol Parameter 481 Registry function. 483 In 2018 the document was updated under auspicies of the IASA2.0 484 working group to reflect the reorganization of IETF Administrative 485 Support Activity. 487 The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided 488 by reviewers of drafts of this document, including Scott Bradner, 489 Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Adrian Farrel, Alfred Hoenes, Paul 490 Hoffman, Alexey Melnikov, Thomas Narten, and Ray Pelletier. 492 Appendix B. IAB members 494 Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was 495 approved for publication were [To Be Confirmed]: 497 Jari Arkko, 498 Alissa Cooper, 499 Ted Hardie, 500 Christian Huitema, 501 Gabriel Montenegro, 502 Erik Nordmark, 503 Mark Nottingham, 504 Melinda Shore, 505 Robert Sparks, 506 Jeff Tantsura, 507 Martin Thomson, 508 Brian Trammell, and 509 Suzanne Woolf. 511 Appendix C. Document Editing Details 513 [Text between square brackets starting with initials are editor 514 notes. Any other text between square brackets assumes an action by 515 the RFC editor prior to publication as an RFC. In most cases this 516 will be removal, sometimes a stylistic or editorial choices ore 517 question is indicated] 519 [This section and its subsections should be removed at publication as 520 RFC, so should the Cover Note] 522 [RFC Editor: in the XML version of this document there are a few 523 cref-comments with editorial questions] 525 C.1. Version Information 527 C.1.1. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-00 529 Original RFC text back ported into XML. With only Editor 530 affiliation changed and IAB members section emptied 532 C.1.2. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-01 534 o Changed references to IAOC to LLC 535 o While reviewing the section on the Trust: Modified reference to 536 RFC 4748 to reference to RFC4371, as that document establishes the 537 Trust while 4748 is technically an update of RFC 3978 (now 538 obsoleted). 539 o Updated reference to ICANN-IETF MoU to most recent version (2018) 540 [MoU_SUPP2018] . 542 C.1.3. draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-02 544 o Standardized on "IETF LLC" as the sort version for the entity (per 545 RFC style guide). 546 o Changed "At the request of the chair of the IETF, IAB, or LLC," to 547 "At the request of the chair of the IETF or IAB, or the IETF 548 Executive Director", in the same paragraph: The reporting of the 549 registry operator does not necessarily need to take place in IETF 550 Plenary, it may happen elsewhere. Text changed to reflect as 551 much. 552 o BCP101 is a better reference than exclusively referring to 553 RFC4371. The way the reference is provided needs RFC Editor 554 attention. 555 o IDnits complained about rfc5226 being obsoleted. One of the 556 rfc5226 references is used for historical context in the 557 acknowledgement section, in other places it was replaced by 8126. 558 o IDnits complained about rfc5620 being obsoleted. The reference to 559 5620 is replaced by rfc6635bis-rfc editor model (not including 560 rfc6548bis-independent rfc editor, as it just serves as an example 561 and does not intend to describe the full RFC Editor universe). 562 o Updated the Acknowledgement section 564 C.2. RCS information 566 $Id: rfc6220bis.xml,v 1.7 2018/10/18 11:08:56 olaf Exp $ 568 Authors' Addresses 570 Danny McPherson (editor) 571 Verisign, Inc. 573 EMail: dmcpherson@verisign.com 575 Olaf Kolkman (editor) 576 Internet Society 578 EMail: kolkman@isoc.org 580 John C Klensin (editor) 582 EMail: john+ietf@jck.com 584 Geoff Huston (editor) 585 APNIC 587 EMail: gih@apnic.net 589 Internet Architecture Board 591 EMail: iab@iab.org