idnits 2.17.1 draft-rfc4020bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document, 'draft-rfc4020bis-00', does not seem to contain all the document name components required ('draft' prefix, document source, document name, and revision) -- see https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines#naming for more information. 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 (September 4, 2012) is 4245 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5226' on line 76 == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 282, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4020 (Obsoleted by RFC 7120) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 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 Obsoletes: 4020 (if approved) September 4, 2012 5 Intended status: Informational 6 Expires: March 8, 2013 8 Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points 9 draft-rfc4020bis-00 11 Abstract 13 This memo describes a process for early allocation of code points by 14 IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC 15 Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply. This 16 process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point 17 allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation 18 and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC that would 19 normally trigger code point allocation. 21 This document obsoletes RFC 4020. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 8, 2013. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Process for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.3. Expiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 1. Introduction 71 In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need 72 to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other 73 protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate. Many of 74 these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet 75 Assigned Number Authority (IANA). Several IANA allocation policies 76 are described in RFC 5226 [5226]. Some of them, such as "First Come 77 First Served" or "Expert Review", do not require a formal IETF action 78 before the IANA performs allocation. However, in situations where 79 code points are a scarce resource and/or the IETF community wishes to 80 retain tight control of the protocol, policies such as "IETF Review" 81 (formerly "IETF Consensus"), or "Standards Action" have been used. 82 Such allocation policies represents a problem in situations where 83 implementation and/or deployment experience are desired or required 84 before the document becomes a RFC. 86 To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly 87 unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from 88 the registry; these may turn out to be different from those later 89 assigned by IANA. To make this problem worse, "pre-RFC" 90 implementations are often developed and deployed based on these code 91 point selections. This creates several potential interoperability 92 problems between early implementations and implementations of the 93 final standard, as described below: 95 1. IANA allocates code points different from those that early 96 implementations assumed would be allocated. Early 97 implementations won't interoperate with standard ones. 99 2. IANA allocates code points for one extension while a "pre-RFC" 100 implementation of a different extension chooses the same code 101 point. The different extensions will collide on the same code 102 point in the field. 104 This gets in the way of the main purpose of standards; namely, to 105 facilitate interoperable implementations. 107 It is easy to say that pre-RFC implementations should be kept private 108 and should not be deployed; however, both the length of the standards 109 process and the immense value of early implementations and early 110 deployments suggest finding a better solution. As an example, in the 111 case of documents produced by Working Groups in the Routing Area, a 112 pre-RFC implementation is highly desirable and sometimes even 113 required [RFC4794], and early deployments provide useful feedback on 114 the technical and operational quality of the specification. 116 This memo addresses the early allocation of code points from spaces 117 whose allocation policy is "Specification Required" (where an RFC is 118 used as the stable reference), "RFC Required", "IETF Review", and 119 "Standards Action". For an explanation of these allocation policies, 120 see [RFC5226]. 122 A policy for IANA early allocations was previously described in 123 [RFC4020]. This document obsoletes RFC 4020 and adds other 124 registration procedures to the types of registries that can qualify 125 for early allocation. 127 2. Conditions for Early Allocation 129 The following conditions must hold before a request may be made for 130 early allocation of code points: 132 a. The code points must be from a space designated as "Specification 133 Required" (where an RFC is used as the stable reference), "RFC 134 Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action". 136 b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to 137 handling the protocol entities defined by the code points 138 (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described 139 in an Internet-Draft. 141 c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if 142 there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later 143 specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. 145 d. There is sufficient interest in early (pre-RFC) implementation 146 and deployment in the community. 148 If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the processes in this memo 149 do not apply. 151 3. Process for Early Allocation 153 There are three processes associated with early allocation: making 154 the request for code points; following up on the request; and 155 revoking an early allocation. It cannot be emphasized enough that 156 these processes must have a minimal impact on IANA itself, or they 157 will not be feasible. 159 The processes described below assume that the document in question is 160 the product of an IETF Working Group. If this is not the case, 161 replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director". 163 3.1. Request 165 The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code 166 points is as follows: 168 1. The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early 169 allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code 170 points require early allocation and which document they should be 171 assigned to. 173 2. The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early 174 allocations described in section 2 are met; particularly, 175 conditions (c) and (d). 177 3. The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that 178 early allocation is appropriate in the case of the given 179 document. 181 4. If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval 182 of the Area Director(s). The Area Director(s) may apply 183 judgement to the request especially if there is a risk of 184 registry depletion. 186 5. The WG chairs request IANA to make an early allocation. 188 6. IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking 189 it as "Temporary", valid for a period of one year from the date 190 of allocation. The date of first allocation the date of expiry 191 should also be recorded in the registry and made visible to the 192 public. 194 Note that Internet Drafts should not include a specific value of a 195 code point until this value has been formally allocated by IANA. 197 3.2. Follow-Up 199 It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working 200 Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the 201 specifications of the code points for which early allocation was 202 requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible. If at 203 some point changes that are not backward compatible are nonetheless 204 required, a decision needs to be made as to whether previously 205 allocated code points must be deprecated (see section 3.3 for more 206 information on code point deprecation). The considerations include 207 aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of the older 208 implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision between 209 older and newer implementations in the field. If the document 210 progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes code point 211 allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and the WG 212 chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations, and of the 213 code point values so allocated, in the IANA Considerations section of 214 the RFC-to-be. Allocation is then just a matter of removing the 215 "temporary" tag from the allocation description. 217 3.3. Expiry 219 If early allocations expire before the document progresses to the 220 point where IANA normally makes allocations, the authors and WG 221 chairs may repeat the process in section 3.1 to request renewal of 222 the code points. At most, one renewal request may be made; thus, 223 authors should choose carefully when the original request is to be 224 made. 226 As an exception to the above rule, under rare circumstances, more 227 than one allocation renewal may be justified. All such renewal 228 requests must be reviewed by the IESG. The renewal request to the 229 IESG must include the reasons why such renewal is necessary, and the 230 WG's plans regarding the specification. 232 If a follow-up request is not made, or the document fails to progress 233 to a RFC, the WG chairs are responsible for informing IANA that the 234 code points are to be marked "deprecated" (and are not to be 235 allocated). The WG chairs are further responsible for informing IANA 236 when the deprecated code points can be completely de-allocated (i.e., 237 made available for new allocations). Implementers and deployers need 238 to be aware that this deprecation and de-allocation could take place 239 at any time after expiry, and an expired early allocation is 240 therefore best considered as deprecated. 242 In particular, it is not IANA's responsibility to track the status of 243 allocations, their expiration, or when they may be re-allocated. 245 Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG and at 246 the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not 247 expired), these allocations must not be expired while the document is 248 under IESG consideration or waiting in the RFC Editor's queue after 249 approval by the IESG. 251 4. IANA Considerations 253 This document defines procedures for early allocation of code points 254 in the registries with the "Specification Required", "RFC Required", 255 "IETF Review", and "Standards Action" policies and as such directly 256 affects IANA. 258 5. Security Considerations 260 It is important to keep in mind 'denial of service' attacks on IANA 261 as a result of the processes in this memo. There are two that are 262 immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations and 263 process overloading of IANA itself. The processes described here 264 attempt to alleviate both of these, but they should be subject to 265 scrutiny by IANA to ensure protection, and IANA may at any time 266 request the IESG to suspend the procedures described in this 267 document. 269 There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document 270 could be used as an end-run on the IETF process to achieve code point 271 allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a 272 WG chair might be put under pressure to obtain an early allocation 273 for a protocol extension for a particular company or for another SDO 274 even though it might be predicted that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation 275 would reject the approach that is documented. The requirement for AD 276 consent of early review is an important safe-guard, and ADs with any 277 concern are strongly recommended to escalate the issue for IESG-wide 278 discussion. 280 6. Normative References 282 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 283 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 285 [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 286 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, 287 February 2005. 289 [RFC4794] Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794, 290 December 2006. 292 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 293 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 294 May 2008. 296 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 298 Many thanks to Bert Wijnen, Adrian Farrel, and Bill Fenner for their 299 input on RFC 4020. Thank you to Kireeti Kompella and Alex Zinin for 300 authoring RFC4020. Thank you to Adrian Farrel, Stewart Bryant, Leo 301 Vegoda for their reviews of this document. 303 Author's Address 305 Michelle Cotton 306 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 307 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 308 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 309 United States of America 311 Phone: +1-310-823-5800 312 Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org 313 URI: http://www.icann.org/