idnits 2.17.1 draft-venaas-pim-registry-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (December 19, 2009) is 5242 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 128, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4601 (Obsoleted by RFC 7761) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Venaas 3 Internet-Draft cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Informational December 19, 2009 5 Expires: June 22, 2010 7 A Registry for PIM Message Types 8 draft-venaas-pim-registry-01.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a 13 registry for PIM message types. It specifies initial content of the 14 registry based on existing RFCs specifying PIM message types. It 15 also specifies a procedure for registering new types. 17 In addition to this, one message type is reserved, and may be used 18 for a future extension of the message type space. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 27 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 28 Drafts. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 38 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 39 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2010. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.1. Initial registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.2. Assignment of new message types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 1. Introduction 73 Apart from this document, there is no existing document specifying a 74 registry for PIM message types. PIM version 1 made use of IGMP 75 [RFC1112] and there is an IGMP registry [IGMPREG] listing the message 76 types used by PIM version 1. PIM version 2 however is not based on 77 IGMP, and a separate PIM message type registry is needed. There are 78 currently several RFCs specifying new PIM version 2 message types 79 that should be in this new registry. They are the RFCs for PIM Dense 80 Mode [RFC3973], PIM Sparse Mode [RFC4601] and Bidirectional PIM 81 [RFC5015]. 83 This document specifies the initial content of the new PIM message 84 type registry based on those existing RFCs. This document also 85 specifies a procedure for registering new PIM message types. 87 In addition to this, this document reserves one message type. This 88 type may be used for a future extension of the message type space. 89 How exactly the extension should be done is left to a future 90 document. 92 2. Security Considerations 94 This document only creates an IANA registry. There may be a security 95 benefit in a well-known place for finding information on which PIM 96 message types are valid and what they mean. Apart from that there 97 are no security considerations. 99 3. IANA Considerations 101 This document requests IANA to create a PIM message type registry. 102 This should be placed in the "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)" 103 branch of the tree. Each entry in the registry consists of message 104 type, message name and references to the documents defining the type. 106 3.1. Initial registry 108 The initial content of the registry should be as follows. 110 Type Name Reference 111 ---- ---------------------------------------- --------------------- 112 0 Hello [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 113 1 Register [RFC4601] 114 2 Register Stop [RFC4601] 115 3 Join/Prune [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 116 4 Bootstrap [RFC4601] 117 5 Assert [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 118 6 Graft [RFC3973] 119 7 Graft-Ack [RFC3973] 120 8 Candidate RP Advertisement [RFC4601] 121 9 State Refresh [RFC3973] 122 10 DF Election [RFC5015] 123 15 Reserved (for extension of type space) [this document] 125 3.2. Assignment of new message types 127 Assignment of new message types is done according to the "IETF 128 Review" model, see [RFC5226]. 130 4. Acknowledgements 132 Thanks to Toerless Eckert for his suggestion to reserve a type for 133 future message type space extension. 135 5. References 137 5.1. Normative References 139 [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol 140 Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol 141 Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005. 143 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, 144 "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 145 Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. 147 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 148 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 149 PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007. 151 5.2. Informative References 153 [IGMPREG] IANA, "IGMP Type Numbers", IGMP TYPE NUMBERS - per 154 RFC3228, 155 BCP57 http://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers, 156 June 2005. 158 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, 159 RFC 1112, August 1989. 161 Author's Address 163 Stig Venaas 164 cisco Systems 165 Tasman Drive 166 San Jose, CA 95134 167 USA 169 Email: stig@cisco.com