IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-06

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Hardware Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures

Requests for ar$hrd values below 256 or a batch of more than one
new value are made through Expert Review [RFC5226].

Note that certain protocols, such as BOOTP and DHCPv4 employ these
values within a 8 bit field. The expert should determine that the
need to allocate the new values exists and that the existing
values are insufficient to represent the new hardware address
types. The expert should also determine the applicability of the
request, and assign values higher than 255 for requests that do
not apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4. Similarly, the expert should assign
one-octet values for requests that apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4, as for
example the "IPsec tunnel" with value 31 [RFC3456]. Conversely,
ARP-only uses without a foreseeable reason to use the same value
in BOOTP/DHCPv4 should favor 2-octet values.

Requests for individual new ar$hrd values that do not specify a
value, or where the requested value is greater than 255, are made
through First Come First Served [RFC5226]. The assignment will
always result in a 2-octet value.


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Protocol Type" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures

These numbers share the Ethertype space. The Ethertype space is
administered as described in [RFC5342].


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Operation Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures

Requests for new ar$op values are made through IETF Review or IESG
Approval [RFC5226].


Action 4:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Hardware Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

Number Hardware Type (hrd) Reference
---------- ------------------- ------------
0 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD<256] HW_EXP1 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD>256] HW_EXP2 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
65535 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]


Action 5:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Operation Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

Number Operation Code (op) References
---------- ------------------- ------------
0 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD] OP_EXP1 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD] OP_EXP2 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
65535 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

IANA Last Call comments:

IANA has questions:

- The document says:

Note that [RFC5342], Section B.2 lists two Ethertypes that can be
used for experimental purposes.

Does this mean that this document should assign those items to
the registry as well? If so, could you copy the registrations by
value into this document?


Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "Hardware Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures
Requests for single new ar$hrd values that do not specify a
value or that specify a value above 255: First Come First Served
Requests for multiple ar$hrd values or for single values
below 256: Expert Review


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "Protocol Type" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures
These numbers share the Ethertype space. The Ethertype space is
administered as described in [RFC5342].


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "Operation Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Registration Procedures
Not defined?

NEW:

Registration Procedures: IETF Review or IESG Approval


Action 4:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Hardware Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

Number Hardware Type (hrd) Reference
---------- ------------------- ------------
0 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD] HW_EXP [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
65535 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]


Action 5:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the
following assignments in the "Operation Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

Number Operation Code (op) References
---------- ------------------- ------------
0 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD] OP_EXP1 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
[TBD] OP_EXP2 [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]
65535 Reserved [RFC-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

[Ballot comment]
In section 2, I suggest moving the exception case (single values >256)
for ar$hrd to the end.  Even if you retain the ordering, I think we need
more clarity in sentence that defines when first come first served can be
used.

I was thinking of something along these lines:

OLD:
      Requests for individual new ar$hrd values are made through First
      Come First Served [RFC5226].  Requests for ar$hrd values below 256
      or a batch of several new values are made through Expert Review
      [RFC5226].  Note that certain protocols, such as BOOTP and DHCPv4
      employ these values within a 8 bit field.  The expert should
      determine that the need to allocate the new values exists and that
      the existing values are insufficient to represent the new hardware
      address types.  The expert should also determine the applicability
      of the request, and assign values higher than 255 for requests
      that do not apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4.  Similarly, the expert should
      assign one-octet values for requests that clearly apply to BOOTP/
      DHCPv4 but not ARP, as for example the "IPsec tunnel" with value
      31 [RFC3456].  Conversely, ARP-only uses should favor 2-octet
      values.
NEW:
      Requests for ar$hrd values below 256
      or a batch of several new values are made through Expert Review
      [RFC5226].  Note that certain protocols, such as BOOTP and DHCPv4
      employ these values within a 8 bit field.  The expert should
      determine that the need to allocate the new values exists and that
      the existing values are insufficient to represent the new hardware
      address types.  The expert should also determine the applicability
      of the request, and assign values higher than 255 for requests
      that do not apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4.  Similarly, the expert should
      assign one-octet values for requests that clearly apply to BOOTP/
      DHCPv4 but not ARP, as for example the "IPsec tunnel" with value
      31 [RFC3456].  Conversely, ARP-only uses should favor 2-octet
      values.

      Requests for individual new ar$hrd values that do not specify a
      value, or where the requested value is greater than 256, are made
      through First Come First Served [RFC5226].

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

There is no document shepherd. The author has re-reviewed the
specification today and believes it contains what it needs to contain.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

There has been review for about two weeks in the INTAREA list. In
addition, key experts such as Scott Bradner and Thomas Narten have
been consulted. No disagreement about publishing a document like this
came up, though minor clarifications and changes in the content were
made.


  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

No. Obviously IETF Last Call review will be useful, and might uncover
some new information.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

No.

  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There seemed to be agreement among the handful of people who reviewed this.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are not
      enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all
      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
      type and URI type reviews?

No nits according to the tools. No other special reviews apply for this
document.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion?  Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

No downreference or other reference problems. Note that -00 referred to
an Informational document as a normative reference, but this got changed
in -01.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document?  If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified?  If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

It is believed that this is inline with Narten's IANA RFC.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

n.a.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document specifies the IANA guidelines for allocating new values
  in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP).  This document also
  reserves some numbers for experimentation purposes.

Working Group Summary

  A call for review has been made in the INTAREA list in October 2008.

Document Quality

  Review on the list has happened, and it is believed that this simple
  document is already correctly written. Additional review from the
  IESG, the IETF-IANA team, and the larger community can of course be
  helpful.