Skip to main content

Principles for Operation of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries

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)
Stream IAB state Published RFC
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
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



   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
   mail list.  See
   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

   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

   ( 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

   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

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

   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

   Open:  The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier
      assignment and registration must be open to all interested

   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,

   [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

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

   Olaf Kolkman
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam  1098 XH
   The Netherlands

Housley & Kolkman        Expires 26 August 2015                 [Page 7]