Early IANA Code Point Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts
draft-iana-7120bis-00

Network Working Group                                      A. Baber, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Tanamal, Ed.
Obsoletes: 7120 (if approved)                                       IANA
Intended status: Best Current Practice                   18 October 2024
Expires: 21 April 2025

    Early IANA Code Point Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts
                         draft-iana-7120bis-00

Abstract

   This memo describes the requirements for securing IANA code point
   assignments before RFC publication.  In particular, it describes the
   "early allocation" process that allows for temporary but renewable
   allocations from registries that would ordinarily require an IESG-
   approved Internet-Draft: namely, registries maintained in accordance
   with the "Standards Action," "IETF Review," "RFC Required," and, in
   some cases, "Specification Required" policies.  This process can be
   used when code point allocation is needed to facilitate desired or
   required implementation and deployment experience prior to
   publication.  The procedures in this document are intended to apply
   only to IETF Stream documents.

   This document obsoletes RFC 7120.

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 https://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 21 April 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Process for Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Expiry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need
   to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other
   protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate.  Many of
   these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet
   Assigned Number Authority (IANA).  Several IETF policies for IANA
   allocation of protocol parameters are described in RFC 8126
   [RFC8126].  Some of them, such as "First Come First Served" and
   "Expert Review," do not require a formal IETF action before the IANA
   performs allocation.

   However, in situations where code points are a scarce resource and/or
   the IETF community has consensus to retain tight control of registry
   content, policies such as "IETF Review" (formerly "IETF Consensus")
   or "Standards Action" have been used.  Such allocation policies
   present a problem in situations where implementation and/or
   deployment experience are desired or required before the document
   becomes an RFC.

   To break the deadlock, document authors often choose some "seemingly
   unused" code points, often by selecting the next available value from
   the registry; this is problematic because these may turn out to be

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   different from those later assigned by IANA.  To make this problem
   worse, "pre-RFC" implementations are often developed and deployed
   based on these code point selections.  This creates several potential
   interoperability problems between early implementations and
   implementations of the final standard, as described below:

   1.  IANA allocates code points different from those that early
       implementations assumed would be allocated.  Early
       implementations won't interoperate with standard ones.

   2.  IANA allocates code points for one extension while a "pre-RFC"
       implementation of a different extension chooses the same code
       point.  The different extensions will collide on the same code
       point in the field.

   This gets in the way of the main purpose of standards; namely, to
   facilitate interoperable implementations.

   It is easy to say that pre-RFC implementations should be kept private
   and should not be deployed; however, both the length of the standards
   process and the immense value of early implementations and early
   deployments suggest that finding a better solution is worthwhile.  As
   an example, in the case of documents produced by Working Groups in
   the Routing Area, a pre-RFC implementation is highly desirable and
   sometimes even required [RFC4794], and early deployments provide
   useful feedback on the technical and operational quality of the
   specification.

   This memo outlines the process for the early allocation of code
   points from IANA registries that require RFC publication.  The early
   allocation mechanisms are available only to IETF Stream documents,
   and they apply only to spaces whose allocation policy is
   "Specification Required" (where an RFC is used as the stable
   reference), "RFC Required," "IETF Review," or "Standards Action."
   For a detailed explanation of these allocation policies, see
   [RFC8126], Section 4.

   A policy for IANA early allocations was previously described in
   [RFC7120].  This document, which obsoletes RFC 7120, extends the
   early allocation term to two years and clarifies.  The procedures in
   this document are intended to apply only to IETF Stream documents.

2.  Conditions for Early Allocation

   If the desired code points come from a "First Come First Served" or
   "Expert Review" space, authors can request permanent registration at
   any time, regardless of document status.  (Registration in an "Expert
   Review" space is, however, subject to expert approval.)

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   The following conditions must hold before IANA can process a request
   for early allocation of code points from other spaces:

   a.  The code points must come from a space designated as "RFC
       Required," "IETF Review," or "Standards Action."  Additionally,
       requests for early assignment of code points from a
       "Specification Required" registry are allowed if the
       specification will be published as an RFC and if IANA can obtain
       expert approval.

   b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
       handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
       (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
       in an IETF Stream Internet-Draft.

   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
       there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
       specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

   d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) must determine
       that there is sufficient interest in the community for early
       (pre-RFC) implementation and deployment, or that failure to make
       an early allocation might lead to contention for the code point
       in the field.

3.  Process for Early Allocation

   There are three processes associated with early allocation: making
   the request for code points, following up on the request, and
   revoking an early allocation.

   The processes described below assume that the document in question is
   the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the case,
   replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director."

3.1.  Request

   The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code
   points is as follows:

   1.  The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
       allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code
       points require early allocation and to which document they should
       be assigned.

   2.  The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
       allocations described in Section 2 are met, particularly
       conditions (c) and (d).

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   3.  The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that
       early allocation is appropriate for the given document.

   4.  If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval
       from the Area Director(s).  The Area Director(s) may apply
       judgment to the request, especially if there is a risk of
       registry depletion.

   5.  If the Area Directors approve step 4), the WG chairs contact IANA
       to request an early allocation.

   6.  If the allocation comes from a "Specification Required" registry,
       or another registry that requires both RFC publication and review
       by an IESG-designated expert, IANA asks the expert(s) to approve
       the request.

   7.  IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking
       the allocation as "Temporary," valid for a period of two years
       from the date of allocation.  The date of first allocation and
       the date of expiry are also recorded in the registry and made
       visible to the public.

   Note that Internet-Drafts should not include a specific value of a
   code point until IANA has completed the early allocation for this
   value.  If a desired value must be named in the document before IANA
   can allocate the code point, it should be clearly labeled as, e.g.,
   "(suggested)" or "(TBD)."

3.2.  Follow-Up

   It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working
   Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the
   specifications of the code points for which early allocation was
   requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible.

   If at some point changes that are not backward compatible are
   nonetheless required, a decision needs to be made as to whether
   previously allocated code points must be deprecated (see Section 3.3
   for more information on code point deprecation).  The considerations
   include aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of
   the older implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision
   between older and newer implementations in the field.

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   If the document progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes
   code point allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and
   the WG chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations and of
   the code point values allocated in the IANA Considerations section of
   the RFC-to-be.  Allocation is then just a matter of removing the
   "Temporary" tag from the allocation description.

3.3.  Expiry

   As described in Section 3.1, each temporary assignment is recorded in
   the registry with the date of expiry of the assignment.  If an early
   allocation will expire before the IESG approves the document for
   publication, IANA will contact the WG chairs and AD to ask whether
   they wish to renew the code points for an additional two-year period.

   After the first extension, any further renewal requests must also be
   approved by the IESG.  The renewal request to the IESG must include
   the reason(s) another renewal is necessary and the WG's plans for the
   specification.

   If an extension is not approved, IANA will ask the WG chairs whether
   they wish to deprecate the code point; completely de-allocate it,
   making it available for assignment again; or leave the allocation in
   place, but with its "temporary" marker, and an expiration date
   indicating that it is no longer valid.

   A deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use as
   described in any document (that is, it is not allocated) and is not
   available for allocation in a future document.  The WG chairs may
   inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely de-
   allocated at any time after it has been deprecated.  Factors
   influencing this decision will include whether there may be
   implementations using the previous temporary allocation and the
   availability of other unallocated code points in the registry.

   Implementers and deployers need to be aware that deprecation and de-
   allocation could take place at any time after expiry; therefore, an
   expired early allocation is best considered as deprecated.

   Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG, and at
   the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not
   expired), these allocations must not be considered to have expired
   while the document is under IESG consideration.

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines procedures for early allocation of code points
   in the registries with the "Specification Required," "RFC Required,"
   "IETF Review," and "Standards Action" policies and as such directly
   affects IANA.

   In addition to implementing approved early allocation requests and
   initiating any required expert reviews, IANA will track early
   allocation expiration dates and initiate renewal requests for
   expiring allocations.

5.  Security Considerations

   It is important to keep in mind that denial-of-service attacks on
   IANA are possible as a result of the processes defined in this memo.
   There are two that are immediately obvious: depletion of code space
   by early allocations and process overloading of IANA itself.  The
   processes described here attempt to alleviate both of these potential
   attacks, but they are subject to scrutiny by IANA to ensure that they
   work.  IANA may at any time request that the IESG suspend the
   procedures described in this document.

   There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document
   could be used as an end-run around the IETF process to achieve code
   point allocation when an RFC will not be published.  For example, a
   WG or a WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for
   a protocol extension for a particular company or for another
   Standards Development Organization even though it might be predicted
   that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is
   documented.  The requirement for AD consent of early review is an
   important safeguard, and ADs with any concern are strongly
   recommended to escalate the issue for IESG-wide discussion.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4794]  Fenner, B., "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", RFC 4794,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4794, December 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4794>.

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation             October 2024

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Thank you to Kireeti Kompella, Alex Zinin, and Michelle Cotton for
   authoring RFC 4020 and RFC 7120.

Authors' Addresses

   Amanda Baber (editor)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   PTI/ICANN
   12025 Waterfront Drive
   Los Angeles,  90094
   United States of America
   Email: amanda.baber@iana.org

   Sabrina Tanamal (editor)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   PTI/ICANN
   12025 Waterfront Drive
   Los Angeles,  90094
   United States of America
   Email: sabrina.tanamal@iana.org

Baber & Tanamal           Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 8]