Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Cridland
Request for Comments: 6075 Isode Limited
Updates: 2244 December 2010
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configuration
Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry
Abstract
The original Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)
specification included a vendor registry now used in other protocols.
This document updates the description of this registry, removing the
need for a direct normative reference to ACAP and removing ambiguity.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6075.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Cridland Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6075 ACAP Vendor Subtrees Registry December 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. The Vendor Subtree Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Changes from RFC 2244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Example Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The [ACAP] specification includes the specification and creation of
the ACAP Vendor Registry, and this registry has subsequently been
reused by several specifications, including both [ANNOTATE] and
[METADATA], and is proving to be a useful mechanism for namespacing
various names to within a specific vendor's scope.
The use of textual rather than numeric identifiers for vendors
benefits engineers and operators who are diagnosing protocol problems
by allowing them some possibility of identifying the origin of a
vendor attribute without having to look it up in a registry (although
that remains a necessary fallback). As such, engineers and operators
already have to be familiar with international technical English to
diagnose textual protocol problems, the restriction to ASCII may help
and is not believed to harm that intended use. Exposure of vendor
attributes directly in end-user user interfaces was not an intended
use of the registry.
This document merely updates the registry to reduce ambiguity in the
original specification and dissociates it from the original document
in all but name, allowing easier referencing. It replaces Section
7.4 and portions of Section 4, particularly Section 4.3, of [ACAP].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
datatracker.ietf.org