idnits 2.17.1 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 3) being 60 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 10, 2014) is 3456 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2132' is mentioned on line 371, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'BCP26' is mentioned on line 572, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC9876' is mentioned on line 1364, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4288 (Obsoleted by RFC 6838) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4395 (Obsoleted by RFC 7595) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6195 (Obsoleted by RFC 6895) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Cotton 3 Internet-Draft ICANN 4 BCP: 26 B. Leiba 5 Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies 6 Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten 7 Expires: May 12, 2015 IBM Corporation 8 November 10, 2014 10 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs 11 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 13 Abstract 15 Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants 16 to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values 17 used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote 18 interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central 19 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet 20 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 22 To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs 23 guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be 24 assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values 25 can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation 26 of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that 27 the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues 28 that are likely in the operation of a registry. 30 This is the third edition, and obsoletes RFC 5226. 32 Status of this Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2015. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ 56 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 57 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 58 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 59 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 60 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 61 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 1.2. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 1.3. Terminology Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 6 72 2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy . . . . . . . . . 8 73 2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . 10 74 2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . 11 75 2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . 12 76 2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 13 78 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 13 79 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 4. Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 84 4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 86 4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 87 4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 88 4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 89 4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 94 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 21 95 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 23 97 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 98 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 25 99 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26 100 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26 101 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 102 9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 103 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 104 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29 105 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 106 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 107 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 30 108 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 109 10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 110 11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 111 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 112 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 113 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 31 114 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 32 115 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 32 116 15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 117 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) . . . . . . . . 33 118 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 34 119 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 34 120 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 121 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 122 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 123 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 125 1. Introduction 127 Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants 128 to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values 129 used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote 130 interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central 131 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet 132 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860]. IANA services are 133 currently provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 134 Numbers (ICANN). 136 The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types 137 [RFC4288] are two examples of such coordinations. 139 In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a 140 field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value 141 with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment 142 (or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point, 143 protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is 144 called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a 145 registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used 146 interchangably throughout this document. 148 To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs 149 guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be 150 assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values 151 can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation 152 of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that 153 the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues 154 that are likely in the operation of a registry. 156 Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the 157 specification with the title "IANA Considerations". 159 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA 161 The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to 162 provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and 163 instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in 164 other parts of the document, and should be included by reference 165 only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical 166 documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document 167 and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take. 169 If, for example, the registration of an item in a registry includes a 170 short description of the item being registered, that should be placed 171 in the IANA Considerations directly. But if it's necessary to 172 include a longer technical explanation of the purpose and use of the 173 item, the IANA Considerations should refer to a technical section of 174 the document where that information resides. Similarly, if the 175 document is pointing out the use of an existing assignment in a 176 registry, but makes no modification to the registration, that should 177 be in a technical section of the document, reserving the IANA 178 Considerations section for instructions to IANA. 180 An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies 181 each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such 182 as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear 183 references to elsewhere in the document for other information. 185 1.2. For More Information 187 IANA maintains a web page that includes current important information 188 from IANA. Document authors should check that page for additional 189 information, beyond what is provided here. 191 . 193 1.3. Terminology Used In This Document 195 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 196 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 197 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 198 For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to 199 the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards 200 process. 202 2. Creating and Revising Registries 204 Defining a registry involves describing the namespace(s) to be 205 created, listing an initial set of assignments (if appropriate), and 206 documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. 208 Before defining a registry, however, consider delegating the 209 namespace in some manner. This route should be pursued when 210 appropriate, as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with 211 assignments. 213 In particular, not all namespaces require a registry; in some cases, 214 assignments can be made independently and with no further (central) 215 coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, IANA only 216 deals with assignments at the higher levels, while subdomains are 217 administered by the organization to which the space has been 218 delegated. When a namespace is delegated in this manner, the scope 219 of IANA is limited to the parts of the namespace where IANA has 220 authority. 222 2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure 224 It's important to start with a word on the IANA registry structure. 225 All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page: 227 . 229 That page lists registries in protocol category groups, like this: 231 --------------------------------------------------------------- 232 Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) Parameters 234 ADSP Outbound Signing Practices RFC 5617 235 IETF Review 237 ADSP Specification Tags RFC 5617 238 IETF Review 240 Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail Parameters 242 Auto-Submitted Header Field RFC 5436 243 Keywords Specification Required 245 Auto-Submitted header field RFC 3834 246 optional parameters IETF Consensus 248 Autonomous System (AS) Numbers 250 16-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6996 251 RIR request to the IANA 252 or IETF Review 254 32-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6793, 255 RFC 6996 256 RIR request to the IANA 257 or IETF Review 258 --------------------------------------------------------------- 260 The grouping allows related registries to be placed together, making 261 it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary 262 information. In the example section above, there are two registries 263 related to the ADSP protocol, and they are both placed in the "ADSP 264 Parameters" group. 266 Within the "ADSP Parameters" group are two registries: "ADSP Outbound 267 Signing Practices" and "ADSP Specification Tags". Clicking on the 268 title of one of these registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page 269 will take the reader to the details page for that registry. Often, 270 multiple registries are shown on the same details page. 272 Unfortunately, we have been inconsistent in how we refer to these 273 entities. The group names, as they are referred to here, have been 274 variously called "protocol category groups", "groups", "top-level 275 registries", or just "registries". The registries under them have 276 been called "registries" or "sub-registries". And when new 277 registries are created, the documents that define them often don't 278 specify the grouping at all, but only name the new registry. This 279 results in questions from IANA and delays in processing, or, worse, 280 in related registries that should have been grouped together, but 281 that are instead scattered about and hard to find and correlate. 283 Regardless of the terminology used, document authors should pay 284 attention to the registry groupings, should request that related 285 registries be grouped together, and, when creating a new registry, 286 should check whether that registry might best be included in an 287 existing group. That grouping information should be clearly 288 communicated to IANA in the registry creation request. 290 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries 292 Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an 293 existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining 294 that space (serving as a repository for registered values) MUST 295 provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the 296 IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it. 298 In particular, such instructions MUST include: 300 The name of the registry (or sub-registry) 301 This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to 302 in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new 303 space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be 304 provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be 305 easily confused with the name of another registry. 307 When creating a sub-registry, the registry that it is a part of 308 MUST be identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in 309 the IANA registry list. 311 Providing a URL to precisely identify the registry helps IANA 312 understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from the RFC 313 prior to final publication. If they are to be left in, it is 314 important that they be permanent links. IANA intends to include 315 the permalink for each registry in the registry header. Until 316 that is done, IANA can answer questions about the correct URLs to 317 use. 319 For example, a document could contain something like this: 321 This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational 322 Parameters registry, located at . 325 It might be tempting to use the URL that appears in your web 326 browser's address bar, which might look something like this for 327 the example above: 329 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry/foobar- 330 registry.xml 332 ...but that is not the permanent link to the registry. 334 Required information for registrations 336 This information may include the need to document relevant 337 Security Considerations, if any. 339 Applicable review process 341 The review process that will apply to all future requests for 342 registration. See Section 2.3. 344 Size, format and syntax of registry entries 346 What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements 347 on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations 348 on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry 349 values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should 350 specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in 351 hexadecimal, or in some other format. For strings, the encoding 352 format should be specified (ASCII, UTF8, etc.). 354 Initial assignments and reservations 356 Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In 357 addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use", 358 "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be 359 indicated. 361 For example, a document might specify a new registry by including: 363 --------------------------------------------------------------- 365 X. IANA Considerations 367 This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see 368 Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space 369 [to be removed upon publication: 370 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters] 371 [RFC2132] [RFC2939]: 372 Data 373 Tag Name Length Meaning 374 ---- ---- ------ ------- 375 TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server 377 The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which 378 IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled 379 "FooType values" under the FooBar option. Initial values for the 380 DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments 381 are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26]. 382 Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its 383 associated value. 385 Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition 386 ---- ------------------------ ---------- 387 0 Reserved 388 1 Frobnitz See Section y.1 389 2 NitzFrob See Section y.2 390 3-254 Unassigned 391 255 Reserved 392 --------------------------------------------------------------- 394 For examples of documents that establish registries, consult 395 [RFC3575], [RFC3968], and [RFC4520]. 397 2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy 399 There are several issues to consider when defining the policy for the 400 new assignments in a registry. 402 If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be 403 made carefully to prevent exhaustion. 405 Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually 406 desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in 407 order to: 409 o prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For 410 example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be 411 desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings 412 that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for 413 example). 415 o provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and 416 is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal 417 review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent 418 assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not 419 actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an 420 essentially equivalent service already exists). 422 Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact 423 interoperability and security. See [RFC6709]. 425 When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no 426 potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can 427 usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In 428 such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is 429 given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should 430 grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective 431 judgement. 433 When this is not the case, some level of review is required. 434 However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of 435 registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be 436 IETF participants; requests often come from other standards 437 organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards, 438 from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for 439 example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily 440 difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other 441 resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial. 443 While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered 444 (e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for 445 which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in 446 many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more 447 important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time 448 and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a 449 registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements 450 actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on 451 the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued. 453 In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such 454 as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will 455 come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the 456 working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a 457 new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a 458 Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, the 459 experience can serve to motivate changing to a lower bar for 460 registration. 462 Indeed, publishing any RFC is costly, and a Standards Track RFC is 463 especially so, requiring a great deal of community time for review 464 and discussion, IETF-wide last call, involvement of the entire IESG 465 as well as concentrated time and review from the sponsoring AD, 466 review and action by IANA, and RFC-Editor processing. 468 Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use 469 care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their 470 documents create registries. They should select the least strict 471 policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific 472 justification for policies that require significant community 473 involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification 474 Required, in terms of the well-known policies). 476 2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies 478 This document defines a number of registration policies in Section 4. 479 Because they benefit from both community experience and wide 480 understanding, their use is encouraged when appropriate. 482 It is also acceptable to cite one of the well-known policies and 483 include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should 484 be taken into account by the review process. 486 For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated 487 Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated 488 Expert should follow. 490 The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards 491 Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness 492 (using the numbering from the full list in Section 4): 494 4. First Come First Served 495 No review, minimal documentation. 497 5/6. Expert Review / Specification Required 498 Expert review with sufficient documentation for review. / 499 Significant stable public documentation sufficient for 500 interoperability. 502 7. RFC Required 503 Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream. 505 8. IETF Review 506 RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards 507 Track. 509 9. Standards Action 510 RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track only. 512 Examples of situations that might merit RFC Required, IETF Review, or 513 Standards Action include the following: 515 o When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two 516 bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases, 517 allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and 518 agreed by community consensus could too quickly deplete the 519 allowable values. 521 o When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or 522 modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One 523 example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options 524 that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict 525 policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the 526 latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that 527 change the semantics of existing operations. 529 The description in Section 4.10 of "IESG Approval" suggests that the 530 IESG "can (and should) reject a request if another path for 531 registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no 532 compelling reason not to use that path." The IESG should give 533 similar consideration to any registration policy more stringent than 534 Expert Review or Specification Required, asking for justification and 535 ensuring that more relaxed policies have been considered, and the 536 strict policy is the right one. 538 Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document 539 their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in 540 the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup). 541 Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected 542 policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG. 544 When specifications are revised, registration policies should be 545 reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set. 547 Note that the well-known policies are not exclusive; there are 548 situations where a different policy might be more appropriate. 550 2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination 552 In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration 553 policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process 554 might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process 555 would have a different policy applied. 557 Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy such as "RFC 558 Required" or "IETF Review" sometimes, with a designated expert 559 checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times. 561 The alternative to using a combination requires either that all 562 requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review 563 by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review 564 and consensus. 566 This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the 567 registry is created: 569 IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" as a 570 sub-registry of "Fruit Parameters". New registrations will be 571 permitted through either the IETF Review policy or the 572 Specification Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used 573 for registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. 575 Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF 576 Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification 577 Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when 578 each policy is appropriate, as in the example above. 580 2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry 582 Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need 583 to be changed after they are created. The process of making such 584 changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make 585 the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream, 586 change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via 587 the IESG. The same is true for value registrations made in IETF- 588 stream RFCs. 590 Because registries can be created and registrations can be made 591 outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desired to have change 592 control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change 593 control policies is always helpful. 595 It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created 596 clearly specify a change control policy and a change controller. It 597 is also advised that registries that allow registrations from outside 598 the IETF stream include, for each value, the designation of a change 599 controller for that value. If the definition or reference for a 600 registered value ever needs to change, or if a registered value needs 601 to be deprecated, it is critical that IANA know who is authorized to 602 make the change. See also Section 9.5. 604 2.4. Revising Existing Registries 606 Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of 607 an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created 608 explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when 609 creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes 610 reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed 611 guidance for handling assignments in the registry, or detailed 612 instructions about the changes required. 614 If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions 615 need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing 616 entries. Other changes may require similar clarity. Remember to 617 check this, and give clear instructions to IANA. 619 Such documents are normally processed with the same document status 620 as the document that created the registry, or as Best Current 621 Practices (BCPs) [RFC2026]. 623 Example documents that updated the guidelines for assignments in pre- 624 existing registries include: [RFC6195], [RFC3228], and [RFC3575]. 626 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry 628 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations 630 Often, documents request an assignment in an existing namespace (one 631 created by a previously published document). 633 Such documents should clearly identify the namespace into which each 634 value is to be registered. If the registration goes into a sub- 635 registry, the author should clearly explain that. Use the exact 636 namespace name as listed on the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where 637 the namespace is defined. 639 There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making 640 new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from 641 the references. 643 When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely 644 identify the registry is helpful. See Section 2.2 for details on 645 specifying the correct URL. 647 For example, a document could contain something like this: 649 This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational 650 Parameters registry, located at . 653 Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the 654 document is approved, and drafts should not specify final values. 655 Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used 656 consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be 657 registered a different placeholder. The IANA Considerations should 658 ask the RFC Editor to replace the placeholder names with the IANA- 659 assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for 660 testing or early implementations, they will either request early 661 allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set 662 aside for testing or experimentation. It is important that drafts 663 not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those values to 664 another document in the meantime. A draft can request a specific 665 value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will accommodate 666 such requests when that's possible, but the proposed number might 667 have been assigned to some other use by the time the draft is 668 approved. 670 Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the 671 document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will 672 consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a 673 different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string 674 values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the 675 expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value 676 instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows 677 the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing 678 the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the 679 final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version 680 of the draft, for example. 682 For some registries, IANA has a long-standing policy prohibiting 683 assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis. 684 For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there 685 is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document 686 is intended to change those policies or prevent their future 687 application. 689 The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA 690 actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the 691 document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is 692 generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also helpful for 693 this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear on 694 the IANA web site. For example: 696 Value Description Reference 697 -------- ------------------- --------- 698 TBD1 Foobar [[this RFC]] 700 Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table is 701 too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table in 702 the draft, but may include a note asking that the table be removed 703 prior to publication of the final RFC. 705 As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment 706 of a DHCPv6 option number: 708 IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS 709 Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to 710 the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space 711 defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315. 713 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations 715 Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations 716 contain additional information that may need to be updated over time. 718 For example, MIME media types, character sets, and language tags 719 typically include more information than just the registered value 720 itself, and may need updates to items such as point-of-contact 721 information, security issues, pointers to updates, and literature 722 references. 724 In such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state 725 who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. 726 Depending on the registry, it may be appropriate to specify one or 727 more of: 729 o Letting registrants and/or nominated change controllers update 730 their own registrations, subject to the same constraints and 731 review as with new registrations. 733 o Allowing attachment of comments to the registration. This can be 734 useful in cases where others have significant objections to a 735 registration, but the author does not agree to change the 736 registration. 738 o Designating the IESG, a designated expert, or another entity as 739 having the right to change the registrant associated with a 740 registration and any requirements or conditions on doing so. This 741 is mainly to get around the problem when a registrant cannot be 742 reached in order to make necessary updates. 744 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 746 Experience has shown that the documented IANA considerations for 747 individual protocols do not always adequately cover the reality of 748 registry operation, or are not sufficiently clear. In addition, 749 documented IANA considerations are sometimes found to be too 750 stringent to allow even working group documents (for which there is 751 strong consensus) to perform a registration in advance of actual RFC 752 publication. 754 In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted 755 authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments 756 on a case-by-case basis. 758 The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures, 759 or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA 760 considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific 761 cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, 762 but updating the IANA process beforehand is too onerous. 764 When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a 765 strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should 766 be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it. 768 IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or 769 intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where 770 policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter 771 issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration 772 requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive. 774 3.4. Early Allocations 776 IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for 777 publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a 778 value is important for the development of a technology: for example, 779 when early implementations are created while the document is still 780 under development. 782 IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some 783 cases. See [RFC7120] for details. 785 4. Well-Known Registration Policies 787 The following are some defined policies, most of which are in use 788 today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used 789 to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a namespace. 790 It is not strictly required that documents use these terms; the 791 actual requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and 792 unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly RECOMMENDED, 793 because their meanings are widely understood. The terms are fully 794 explained in the following subsections. 796 1. Private Use 797 2. Experimental Use 798 3. Hierarchical Allocation 799 4. First Come First Served 800 5. Expert Review 801 6. Specification Required 802 7. RFC Required 803 8. IETF Review 804 9. Standards Action 805 10. IESG Approval 807 It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a namespace 808 into multiple categories, with assignments within each category 809 handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into 810 two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or 811 Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique 812 assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a 813 namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in 814 place for different ranges and different use cases. 816 Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in 817 parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances. 818 For more discussion of that topic, see Section 2.3.2. 820 Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel: 822 LDAP [RFC4520] 823 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in 824 the subsections below) 825 Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) [RFC4446] 827 4.1. Private Use 829 For private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by 830 the local site. No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from 831 using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. There is 832 no need for IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not 833 record them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad 834 interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use 835 of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within 836 the intended scope of use). 838 Examples: 840 Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939] 841 Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044] 842 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246] 844 4.2. Experimental Use 846 Experimental Use is similar to Private Use only, but with the purpose 847 being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details. 849 Example: 851 Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP 852 Headers [RFC4727] 854 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation 856 With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given 857 control over part of the namespace, and can assign values in that 858 part of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels 859 of the namespace according to one of the other policies. 861 Examples: 863 DNS names 864 Object Identifiers 865 IP addresses 867 4.4. First Come First Served 869 For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to 870 anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive 871 review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed 872 and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must 873 include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of 874 contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address) 875 and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional 876 information specific to the type of value requested may also need to 877 be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, the exact 878 value is generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text 879 strings can usually be requested. 881 When creating a new registry with First Come First Served as the 882 registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or 883 reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller. 884 Having a change controller for each entry for these types of 885 registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear. 886 See Section 2.3.3. It is important that changes to the registration 887 of a First Come First Served code point retain compatibility with the 888 current usage of that code point, and so changes need to be made with 889 care. 891 It is also important to understand that First Come First Served 892 really has no filtering. Essentially, any request is accepted. A 893 working group or any other entity that is developing protocol based 894 on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely careful 895 that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use of the 896 code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs to 897 change to a different code point (and register that use at the 898 appropriate time). 900 Examples: 902 SASL mechanism names [RFC4422] 903 LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520] 905 4.5. Expert Review 907 (Also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of this 908 document.) For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a 909 designated expert (see Section 5) is required. The required 910 documentation and review criteria for use by the designated expert 911 should be provided when defining the registry. For example, see 912 Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748]. 914 It is particularly important, when using a designated expert, to give 915 clear guidance to the expert, laying out criteria for performing an 916 evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. When specifying a 917 policy that involves a designated expert, the IANA Considerations 918 SHOULD contain such guidance. It is also a good idea to include, 919 when possible, a sense of whether many registrations are expected 920 over time, or if the registry is expected to be updated infrequently 921 or in exceptional circumstances only. 923 When creating a new registry with Expert Review as the registration 924 policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the 925 registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a 926 change controller for each entry for these types of registrations 927 makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section 928 2.3.3 930 Examples: 932 EAP Method Types [RFC3748] 933 HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169] 934 URI schemes [RFC4395] 935 GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589] 937 4.6. Specification Required 939 For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a 940 designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and 941 their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily 942 available public specification, in sufficient detail so that 943 interoperability between independent implementations is possible. 944 The designated expert will review the public specification and 945 evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow interoperable 946 implementations. The intention behind "permanent and readily 947 available" is that a document can reasonably be expected to be 948 findable and retrievable long after IANA assignment of the requested 949 value. Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this 950 requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also cover the 951 case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For RFC 952 publication, the normal RFC review process is expected to provide the 953 necessary review for interoperability, though the designated expert 954 may be a particularly well-qualified person to perform such a review. 956 When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification 957 Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert 958 Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion. 960 Examples: 962 Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers 963 [RFC4124] 964 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246] 965 ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795] 967 4.7. RFC Required 969 With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with 970 associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need 971 not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an 972 RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, or IAB stream, or an RFC Editor 973 Independent Submission [RFC5742]). Unless otherwise specified, any 974 type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, 975 Informational, Experimental, or Historic). 977 4.8. IETF Review 979 (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this 980 document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only 981 through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded 982 through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group Documents 983 [RFC2026] [RFC5378]. 985 The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be 986 reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working 987 groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure 988 that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect 989 interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an 990 inappropriate or damaging manner. To ensure adequate community 991 review, such documents will always undergo an IETF Last Call. 993 Examples: 995 IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025] 996 Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005] 997 TLS Extension Types [RFC5246] 999 4.9. Standards Action 1001 For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through 1002 Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. 1004 Examples: 1006 BGP message types [RFC4271] 1007 Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283] 1008 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246] 1009 DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340] 1011 4.10. IESG Approval 1013 New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no 1014 requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has 1015 discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a 1016 case-by-case basis. 1018 IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case"; 1019 indeed, it has seldom been used in practice during the period RFC 1020 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is intended to be available in 1021 conjunction with other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case 1022 where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be 1023 employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. 1024 IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review 1025 processes implied by other policies that could have been employed for 1026 a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be appropriate, 1027 however, in cases where expediency is desired and there is strong 1028 consensus (such as from a working group) for making the assignment. 1030 The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation under IESG 1031 Approval: 1033 o The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another path for 1034 registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no 1035 compelling reason not to use that path. 1037 o Before approving a request, the community should be consulted, via 1038 a "call for comments" that provides as much information as is 1039 reasonably possible about the request. 1041 Examples: 1043 IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771] 1044 IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228] 1045 Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275] 1047 5. Designated Experts 1049 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts 1051 IANA does not define registry policy itself; rather, it carries out 1052 policies that have been defined by others and published in RFCs. As 1053 part of that process, review of proposed registrations is often 1054 appropriate. 1056 A common way to ensure such review is for a proposed registration to 1057 be published as an RFC, as this ensures that the specification is 1058 publicly and permanently available. It is particularly important if 1059 any potential interoperability issues might arise. For example, some 1060 assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of 1061 protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to 1062 be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit 1063 cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols 1064 on which they are built. 1066 In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 1067 register a protocol element is excessive. 1069 However, it is generally still useful (and sometimes necessary) to 1070 discuss proposed registrations within the community, on a mailing 1071 list. Such a mailing list provides opportunity for public review 1072 prior to assignment, and allows for a consultative process when 1073 registrants want help in understanding what a proper registration 1074 should contain. 1076 While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical 1077 feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some 1078 time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate 1079 in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such 1080 discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated 1081 expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an 1082 assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual 1083 who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and 1084 returning a recommendation to IANA. 1086 It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated 1087 experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert 1088 to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards 1089 requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the 1090 expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether 1091 or not to make the assignment or registration. 1093 It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the 1094 time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of 1095 that topic, see Section 2.3.2. 1097 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 1099 The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate 1100 review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow, 1101 depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert. 1102 This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts, 1103 discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working 1104 group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc. 1105 Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as 1106 documented with the protocol that creates or uses the namespace. See 1107 the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for 1108 specific examples. 1110 Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions 1111 to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to 1112 be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are 1113 expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, 1114 or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted 1115 norms such as those in Section 5.3. 1117 In registries where a pool of experts evaluates requests, the pool 1118 should have a single chair responsible for defining how requests are 1119 to be assigned to and reviewed by experts. In some cases, the expert 1120 pool may consist of a primary and backups, with the backups involved 1121 only when the primary expert is unavailable. In other cases, IANA 1122 might assign requests to individual members in sequential or 1123 approximate random order. In the event that IANA finds itself having 1124 received conflicting advice from its experts, it is the 1125 responsibility of the pool's chair to resolve the issue and provide 1126 IANA with clear instructions. 1128 If a designated expert is conflicted for a particular review (is, for 1129 example, an author or significant proponent of a specification 1130 related to the registration under review), that expert should recuse 1131 himself. In the event that all the designated experts are 1132 conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated for 1133 the conflicted review. 1135 It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some 1136 registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a 1137 request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups. 1138 In cases of disagreement among those experts, it is the 1139 responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation 1140 to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among 1141 experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating 1142 body may need to step in to resolve the problem. 1144 This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to 1145 documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may 1146 use a registration policy that requires a designated expert only if 1147 those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are 1148 appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by 1149 the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream. 1151 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF 1153 Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed 1154 by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area 1155 Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or 1156 updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when 1157 the first registration request is received. Because experts 1158 originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will 1159 appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any 1160 designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion. 1162 The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1, 1163 applies to issues that arise with the designated expert team. For 1164 this purpose, the designated expert team takes the place of the 1165 working group in that description. 1167 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews 1169 In the years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to use, 1170 experience has led to the following observations: 1172 o A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally 1173 within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex 1174 ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for 1175 those needing assignments, such as when products need code points 1176 to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed 1177 under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester 1178 and IANA should have some transparency into the process if an 1179 answer cannot be given quickly. 1181 o If a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within 1182 a reasonable period of time, either with a response or with a 1183 reasonable explanation for the delay (some requests may be 1184 particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must 1185 raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by 1186 delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take 1187 appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and 1188 accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a new expert. 1190 o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the 1191 burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a 1192 shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as 1193 appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting 1194 the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have 1195 the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert 1196 must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. 1198 When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear 1199 guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing 1200 an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where 1201 there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be 1202 that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling 1203 reason to the contrary. Possible reasons to deny a request include 1204 these: 1206 o Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points 1207 should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number 1208 of code points is made and a single code point is the norm. 1210 o Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure 1211 interoperability. 1213 o The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the 1214 extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally 1215 understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and 1216 would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not 1217 the intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a 1218 personal preference nature". Instead, they refer to significant 1219 differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security 1220 model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message 1221 type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed 1222 systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar 1223 result), etc. 1225 o The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. 1227 o The extension would conflict with one under active development by 1228 the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster 1229 interoperability. 1231 When a designated expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the 1232 designated expert in the document itself; instead, any suggested 1233 names should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time 1234 the document is sent to the IESG for approval. This is usually done 1235 in the document shepherd writeup. 1237 If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing 1238 list, its address should be specified. 1240 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle 1242 Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular 1243 point in time, and represents review of a particular version of the 1244 document. Deciding when the review should take place is a question 1245 of good judgment. And while re-reviews might be done when it's 1246 acknowledged that the documentation of the registered item has 1247 changed substantially, making sure that re-review happens requires 1248 attention and care. 1250 It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or 1251 even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the 1252 designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document 1253 were re-reviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration. 1254 It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area 1255 Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such 1256 changes need to be checked. 1258 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology 1260 The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of 1261 assignments: 1263 Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in 1264 Section 4.1. 1266 Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described 1267 in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for 1268 any particular use. 1270 Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment 1271 via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that 1272 any values that are not registered are unassigned and 1273 available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to 1274 explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is 1275 distinctly different from "Reserved". 1277 Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. Reserved 1278 values are held for special uses, such as to extend the 1279 namespace when it becomes exhausted. Note that this is 1280 distinctly different from "Unassigned". 1282 Reserved values can be released for assignment by the change 1283 controller for the registry (this is often the IESG, for 1284 registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream). 1286 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries 1288 Usually, registries and registry entries include references to 1289 documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these 1290 references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details 1291 necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document 1292 created the registry or entry. Therefore: 1294 o If a document registers an item that is defined and explained 1295 elsewhere, the registered reference should be to that document, 1296 and not to the document that is merely performing the 1297 registration. 1299 o If the registered item is defined and explained in the current 1300 document, it is important to include sufficient information to 1301 enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper 1302 implementation. 1304 o If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific 1305 section of the reference document, it is useful to include a 1306 section reference. For example, "[RFC9876], Section 3.2", rather 1307 than just "[RFC9876]". 1309 o For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide 1310 information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the 1311 creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the 1312 registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the 1313 process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new 1314 registrants or designated experts, and other such related 1315 information. But note that, while it's important to include this 1316 information in the document, it needn't (and shouldn't) all be in 1317 the IANA Considerations section. See Section 1.1. 1319 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents 1321 On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of 1322 the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as 1323 when RFC 9876 is updated by draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis. When the 1324 original document created registries and/or registered entries, there 1325 is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section in the 1326 "bis" document. 1328 If the registrations specify the original document as a reference, 1329 those registrations should be updated to point to the current (not 1330 obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that will mean 1331 changing the reference to be the "bis" document. There will, though, 1332 be times when a document updates another, and changes the definitive 1333 reference for some items, but not for others. Be sure that the 1334 references are always set to point to the correct, current 1335 documentation for each item. 1337 For example, suppose RFC 9876 registered the "BANANA" flag in the 1338 "Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is 1339 in Section 3.2. 1341 The current registry might look, in part, like this: 1343 Name Description Reference 1344 -------- ------------------- --------- 1345 BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC9876], Section 3.2 1347 If draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis obsoletes RFC 9876 and, because of some 1348 rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA 1349 Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this: 1351 IANA is asked to change the registration information for the 1352 BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the following: 1354 Name Description Reference 1355 -------- ------------------- --------- 1356 BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1 1358 In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the 1359 original RFC and the document organization has not changed the 1360 registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do 1361 this: 1363 Because this document obsoletes RFC 9876, IANA is asked to change 1364 all registration information that references [RFC9876] to instead 1365 reference [[this RFC]]. 1367 If information for registered items has been or is being moved to 1368 other documents, then, of course, the registration information should 1369 be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it 1370 reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document 1371 for any registries or registered items that are still in current use. 1373 It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding 1374 updating references, especially in cases where some references need 1375 to be updated and others do not. 1377 9. Miscellaneous Issues 1379 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 1381 Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 1382 know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown 1383 that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no 1384 IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In 1385 order to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and 1386 that the author has consciously made such a determination), such 1387 documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: 1389 This document has no IANA actions. 1391 This statement, or an equivalent, must only be inserted after the 1392 working group or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be 1393 true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without 1394 careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA 1395 actions being performed. 1397 If a specification makes use of values from a namespace in which 1398 assignments are not made by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, 1399 with wording such as this: 1401 The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo 1402 registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document 1403 has no IANA actions. 1405 IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left 1406 in the document for the record. This is a change from the prior 1407 practice of requesting that such sections be removed by the RFC 1408 Editor, and authors are asked to accommodate this change. 1410 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance 1412 For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on 1413 IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment 1414 policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide 1415 what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always 1416 be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through 1417 the IESG when appropriate. 1419 All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to 1420 register or otherwise administer namespace assignments MUST provide 1421 guidelines for administration of the namespace. 1423 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations 1425 Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a 1426 namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is 1427 being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The 1428 IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described 1429 in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In the absence of 1430 specifications to the contrary, values may only be reassigned for a 1431 different purpose with the consent of the original assignee (when 1432 possible) and with due consideration of the impact of such a 1433 reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation with the 1434 IESG is advised. 1436 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values 1438 Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because 1439 doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems 1440 still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely 1441 difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use 1442 of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is 1443 running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it 1444 may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When 1445 reclaiming unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be 1446 considered: 1448 o Attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a 1449 value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if 1450 so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never 1451 shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be 1452 known that a value was never actually used at all.) 1454 o Reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence 1455 of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions 1456 should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value 1457 is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs 1458 the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG Approval is 1459 needed in this case. 1461 o It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit 1462 comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be 1463 appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF 1464 process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed 1465 some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942]. 1467 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner 1469 Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative 1470 contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as 1471 contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what 1472 role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this 1473 item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the 1474 individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual 1475 was acting for? 1477 This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed 1478 jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might 1479 want to update the registration. IANA has no way to know what 1480 company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take the 1481 registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream 1482 owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision. 1483 But in other cases, there is no recourse. 1485 Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an 1486 "Assignee" or "Owner" field that can be used to address this 1487 situation, giving IANA clear guidance as to the actual owner of the 1488 registration. This is strongly advised especially for registries 1489 that do not require RFCs to manage their information (registries with 1490 policies such as First Come First Served Section 4.4, Expert Review 1491 Section 4.5, and Specification Required Section 4.6). Alternatively, 1492 organizations can put an organizational role into the "Contact" field 1493 in order to make their ownership clear. 1495 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry 1497 Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further 1498 registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations 1499 will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be 1500 valid and registrations already in the registry can still be updated. 1502 A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication 1503 that the information in the registry is no longer in current use. 1505 Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer 1506 in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended). 1508 Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to 1509 normal change controls (see Section 2.3.3). Any closure, 1510 obsolescence, or deprecation serves to annotate the registry 1511 involved; the information in the registry remains there for 1512 informational and historic purposes. 1514 10. Appeals 1516 Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made 1517 using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026], 1518 Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the 1519 IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. 1521 11. Mailing Lists 1523 All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing 1524 assignment requests as described in this document are subject to 1525 whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are 1526 currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision. 1528 12. Security Considerations 1530 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 1531 authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to 1532 instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept 1533 clarifications from document authors, relevant working group chairs, 1534 Designated Experts, and mail list participants, too. 1536 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 1537 protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities 1538 related to how an assigned number is used may change as well. As new 1539 vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such 1540 vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations, so 1541 that users are not misled as to the true security issues surrounding 1542 the use of a registered number. 1544 An analysis of security issues is generally required for all 1545 protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, 1546 keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such 1547 security considerations are usually included in the protocol document 1548 [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations 1549 associated with a particular registry to specify what (if any) 1550 security considerations must be provided when assigning new values, 1551 and the process for reviewing such claims. 1553 13. IANA Considerations 1555 In accordance with Section 9.1: 1557 This document has no IANA actions. 1559 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 1560 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 1562 Significant additions: 1564 o Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA 1566 o Added Section 1.2, For More Information 1568 o Added Section 2.1, Hierarchical Registry Structure 1570 o Added Section 2.3, Best Practice for Selecting an Appropriate 1571 Policy. 1573 o Added Section 2.3.2, Using Multiple Policies in Combination. 1575 o Added Section 2.3.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry 1577 o Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations 1579 o Moved well-known policies into a separate section for each, 1580 subsections of Section 4. 1582 o Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle 1584 o Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries 1586 o Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents 1588 o Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner 1590 o Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry 1592 Clarifications and such: 1594 o Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier 1595 reading. 1597 o Made clarifications about identification of IANA registries and 1598 use of URLs for them. 1600 o Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved". 1602 o Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to 1603 the designated expert. 1605 o Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to 1606 declare this policy. 1608 o Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout. 1610 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 1612 Changes include: 1614 o Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better 1615 group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new 1616 registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the 1617 text most applicable to their needs. 1619 o Numerous editorial changes to improve readability. 1621 o Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more 1622 clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF 1623 Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) and are 1624 quick to make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in 1625 the context of IANA Considerations. 1627 o Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies. 1629 o Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in 1630 RFCs". 1632 o "Specification Required" now implies use of a Designated Expert to 1633 evaluate specs for sufficient clarity. 1635 o Significantly changed the wording in the Designated Experts 1636 section. Main purpose is to make clear that Expert Reviewers are 1637 accountable to the community, and to provide some guidance for 1638 review criteria in the default case. 1640 o Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal 1641 RFC 2026 appeals path is used. 1643 o Added a section about reclaiming unused values. 1645 o Added a section on after-the-fact registrations. 1647 o Added a section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate 1648 possible assignments (such as by a Designated Expert) are subject 1649 to normal IETF rules. 1651 15. Acknowledgments 1653 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) 1655 Thomas Narten and Harald Tveit Alvestrand edited the two earlier 1656 editions of this document (RFCs 2434 and 5226), and Thomas continues 1657 his role in this third edition. Much of the text from RFC 5226 1658 remains in this edition. 1660 Thank you to Amanda Baber and Pearl Liang for their multiple reviews 1661 and suggestions for making this document as thorough as possible. 1663 This document has benefited from thorough review and comments by Tony 1664 Hansen, John Klensin, and Mark Nottingham. 1666 Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for reorganizing some of the text 1667 for better organization and readability, and to Tony Hansen for 1668 acting as document shepherd. 1670 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) 1672 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 5226 was: 1674 This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko, 1675 Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Spencer 1676 Dawkins, Barbara Denny, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley, 1677 John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus 1678 Westerlund, and Bert Wijnen. 1680 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) 1682 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was: 1684 Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what 1685 IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently 1686 provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian 1687 Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 1688 document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was 1689 borrowed from [RFC4288]. 1691 16. References 1693 16.1. Normative References 1695 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1696 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 1698 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1699 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1701 16.2. Informative References 1703 [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1704 1981. 1706 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 1707 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 1708 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 1710 [RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition 1711 of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, 1712 September 2000. 1714 [RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group 1715 Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, February 1716 2002. 1718 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 1719 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 1720 2003. 1722 [RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote 1723 Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July 1724 2003. 1726 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 1727 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 1729 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J. and H. 1730 Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 1731 3748, June 2004. 1733 [RFC3942] Volz, B., "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration 1734 Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4) Options", RFC 3942, November 1735 2004. 1737 [RFC3968] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority 1738 (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session 1739 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, December 1740 2004. 1742 [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter 1743 Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. 1745 [RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying 1746 Material in DNS", RFC 4025, March 2005. 1748 [RFC4044] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC 4044, 1749 May 2005. 1751 [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of 1752 Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 1753 2005. 1755 [RFC4169] Torvinen, V., Arkko, J. and M. Naslund, "Hypertext 1756 Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using 1757 Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) Version-2", RFC 1758 4169, November 2005. 1760 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 1761 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 1763 [RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H. and K. 1764 Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 1765 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005. 1767 [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and 1768 Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. 1770 [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M. and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion 1771 Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. 1773 [RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and 1774 Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC 1775 4395, February 2006. 1777 [RFC4422] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and 1778 Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. 1780 [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge 1781 Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006. 1783 [RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 1784 Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access 1785 Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006. 1787 [RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types 1788 Registry", RFC 4589, July 2006. 1790 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 1791 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 1793 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1794 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. 1796 [RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide 1797 to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008. 1799 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 1800 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP 1801 92, RFC 5742, December 2009. 1803 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L. and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 1804 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 1805 March 2010. 1807 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G. and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 1808 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 1809 2010. 1811 [RFC6195] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 1812 Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6195, March 2011. 1814 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 1815 in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 1817 [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design 1818 Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, 1819 September 2012. 1821 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 1822 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. 1824 Authors' Addresses 1826 Michelle Cotton 1827 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1828 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 1829 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 1830 US 1832 Phone: +1 310 823 9358 1833 Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org 1834 URI: http://www.icann.org/ 1836 Barry Leiba 1837 Huawei Technologies 1839 Phone: +1 646 827 0648 1840 Email: barryleiba@computer.org 1841 URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ 1843 Thomas Narten 1844 IBM Corporation 1845 3039 Cornwallis Ave., PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 1846 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1847 US 1849 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1850 Email: narten@us.ibm.com