Principles for Operation of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries
draft-iab-iana-principles-05
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D) that has been submitted to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) stream.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7500.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Russ Housley , Olaf Kolkman | ||
Last updated | 2015-04-06 (Latest revision 2015-02-27) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews | |||
Stream | IAB state | Published RFC | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
IAB shepherd | (None) |
draft-iab-iana-principles-05
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) R. Housley (editor) Internet-Draft Vigil Security Intended status: Informational O. Kolkman (editor) Internet Society Expires: 26 August 2015 26 February 2015 Principles for Operation of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries draft-iab-iana-principles-05 Abstract This document provides principles for the operation of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries. {{{ RFC Editor: Please delete the note prior to publication. }}} Note: This Internet-Draft was developed by the IAB IANA Evolution Program, and it should be discussed on the InternetGovtech@iab.org mail list. See http://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech for subscription details. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 August 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 (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. 0. Document Background {{{ RFC Editor: Please delete this section prior to publication. }}} This document is a split off from draft-iab-iana-framework-02. This document contains principles that were scattered in various places in the IANA Framework, pulling them into one place. The IANA Framework has been under discussion since February 2011. 1. Introduction The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its predecessors have traditionally separated the publication of protocol specifications in immutable Request for Comments (RFCs) and the registries containing protocol parameters. The latter is maintained by a set of functions traditionally known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Dating back to the earliest days of the Internet, specification publication and the registry operations were tightly coupled: Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC) was responsible for both RFC publication and IANA registry operation. This tight coupling had advantages, but it was never a requirement. Indeed, today the RFC Editor and IANA registry operation are provided by different entities. Internet registries are critical to the operation of the Internet, since they provide a definitive record of the value and meaning of identifiers that protocols use when communicating with each other. Almost every Internet protocol makes use of registries in some form. At the time of writing, the IANA maintains more than two thousand protocol parameter registries. Internet registries hold protocol identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values used by Internet protocols. These values can be numbers, strings, addresses, and so on. They are uniquely assigned for one particular purpose or use. Identifiers can be maintained in a central list (such as a list of cryptographic algorithms) or they can be hierarchically allocated and assigned by separate entities at different points in the hierarchy (such as IP Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 addresses and domain names). To maximize trust and usefulness, the principles in this document should be taken into consideration for centralized registries as well as hierarchically delegated registries. In hierarchically delegated registries, entries nearest to top-level have broad scope, but lower-level entries have narrow scope. The IAB will encourage support for these principles in all delegations of Internet identifiers. The registry system is built on trust and mutual cooperation. The use of the registries is voluntary and is not enforced by mandates or certification policies. While the use of registries is voluntary, it is noted that the success of the Internet creates enormous pressure to use Internet protocols and the identifier registries associated with them. This document provides principles for the operation of IANA registries, ensuring that protocol identifiers have consistent meanings and interpretations across all implementations and deployments, and thus providing the necessary trust in the IANA registries. 2. Principles for the Operation of IANA Registries The following key principles underscore the successful functioning of the IANA registries, and they provide a foundation for trust in those registries: Ensure Uniqueness: The same protocol identifier must not be used for more than one purpose. Stable: Protocol identifier assignment must be lasting. Predictable: The process for making assignments must not include unexpected steps. Public: The protocol identifiers must be made available in a manner that makes them freely available to everyone in well-known locations. Open: The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier assignment and registration must be open to all interested parties. Transparent: The protocol registries and their associated policies should be developed in a transparent manner. Accountable: Registry policy development and registry operations need to be accountable to the affected community. Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 3. Discussion The principles discussed in Section 2 provide trust and confidence in the IANA registries. 3.1. Ensuring Uniqueness, Stability, and Predictability Protocol identifier assignment and registration must be unique, stable, and predictable. Developers, vendors, customers, and users depend on the registries for unique protocol identifiers that are assigned in a stable and predictable manner. A protocol identifier may only be reassigned for a different purpose after due consideration of the impact of such a reassignment, and if possible, with the consent of the original assignee. Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those involving a designated expert [RFC5226], a predictable process does not require completion in a predetermined number of days. Rather, it means that no unexpected steps are introduced in the process of making an assignment. 3.2. Public Once assigned, the protocol identifiers must be made available in a manner that makes them freely available to everyone without restrictions. The use of a consistent publication location builds confidence in the registry. This does not mean that the publication location can never change, but it does mean that it must change infrequently and only after adequate prior notice. 3.3. Open and Transparent The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier assignment and registration must be open to all interested parties and operate in a transparent manner. When a registry is established, a policy is set for the addition of new entries and the updating of existing entries. While making additions and modifications, the registry operator may expose instances where policies lack of clarity. When this occurs, the registry operator should provide helpful feedback to allow those policies to be improved. In addition, the registry operator not being involved in establishing registry policy avoids the risks associated with (perceptions of) favoritism and unfairness. Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those involving a designated expert [RFC5226], the recommendations by Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 designated experts must be visible to the public to the maximum extent possible and subject to challenge or appeal. 3.4. Accountable The process that sets the policy for IANA registries and the operation of the registries must be accountable to the parties that rely on the protocol identifiers. Oversight is needed to ensure these are properly serving the affected community. In practice accountability mechanisms for the registry operator may be defined by contract, memoranda of understanding, or service level agreements (SLAs). An oversight body uses these mechanisms to ensure that the registry operator is meeting the needs of the affected community, but the oversight body is held accountable to the affected community by vastly different mechanisms, for instance recall and appeal processes. For protocol parameters [RFC6220], the general oversight over the IANA function is performed by the IAB as a chartered responsibility from [RFC2850]. In addition the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), a body responsible for IETF administrative and financial matters [BCP101], maintains an SLA with the current registry operator, the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN), thereby specifying the operational requirements with respect to the coordination, maintenance, and publication of the protocol parameter registries. Both the IAB and the IAOC are accountable to the larger Internet community and are being held accountable through the IETF Nomcom process [BCP10]. For the Internet Number Registries [RFC7249], oversight is performed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) as described RFC 7020 [RFC7020]. The RIRs are member-based organizations, and they are accountable to the affected community by elected governance boards. Furthermore, per agreement between the RIRs and ICANN, the policy development for the global IANA number registries is coordinated by a community-elected number council and subject to process review before ratification by the ICANN Board of Trustees [ASOMOU]. 4. Security Considerations Internet Registries are critical to elements of Internet security. The principles described in this document are necessary for the Internet community to place trust in the IANA registries. Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 5. IANA Considerations {{{ RFC Editor: Please delete this section prior to publication. }}} This document does not contain updates to any registries. 6. Informative References [ASOMOU] Published by ICANN, "ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU", October 2004, <http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>. [BCP10] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. Dawkins, S., "Nominating Committee Process: Earlier Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of Volunteers", BCP 10, RFC 5633, August 2009. [BCP101] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005. Carpenter, B., Ed., and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, January 2006. [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, May 2000. [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., and Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", RFC 6220, April 2011. [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May 2014. Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IANA Registry Principles February 2015 IAB Members at the Time of Approval Jari Arkko (IETF Chair) Mary Barnes Marc Blanchet Joel Halpern Ted Hardie Joe Hildebrand Russ Housley Eliot Lear Xing Li Erik Nordmark Andrew Sullivan Dave Thaler Brian Trammell Contributors and Acknowledgements This text has been developed within the IAB IANA Evolution Program. The ideas and many text fragments, and corrections came from or were inspired on comments from: Bernard Aboba, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jari Arkko, Marcelo Bagnulo, Mark Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, David Conrad, Steve Crocker, John Curran, Alissa Cooper, Leslie Daigle, Elise Gerich, John Klensin, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Eliot Lear, Danny McPherson, George Michaelson, Thomas Narten, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Brian Trammell, and Greg Wood. Further inspiration and input was drawn from various meetings with IETF and other Internet community (RIRs, ISOC, W3C, IETF, and IAB) leadership. Please do not assume those acknowledged endorse the resulting text. Authors' Addresses Russ Housley 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon, VA 20170 USA Email: housley@vigilsec.com Olaf Kolkman Science Park 400 Amsterdam 1098 XH The Netherlands EMail: kolkman@isoc.org Housley & Kolkman Expires 26 August 2015 [Page 7]