Early IANA Code Point Allocation
draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis-03

Network Working Group                                      A. Baber, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Tanamal, Ed.
Obsoletes: 7120 (if approved)                                       IANA
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       6 July 2026
Expires: 7 January 2027

                    Early IANA Code Point Allocation
                    draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis-03

Abstract

   This document describes the requirements for securing IANA code point
   assignments for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts and specifications being
   drafted by other standards-related organizations.  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 7 January 2027.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (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.

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Changes Since RFC 7120  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Permanent Allocation for Internet-Drafts (and Other
           Drafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conditions for Time-Limited Early Allocation  . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Early Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts  . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Process for Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Early Allocation for Standards-Related Organizations  . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organization
           Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Protocol specifications in RFCs often require code point assignments
   for messages, objects, and other protocol elements to ensure
   interoperable implementations.  The Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) manages these allocations in accordance with
   policies described in [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis].

   When code points are scarce or the IETF wishes to maintain strict
   control over assignments, registries commonly use policies such as
   "IETF Review" or "Standards Action."  These policies can create
   challenges when implementers need deployment or interoperability
   experience before documents can be finalized and approved for
   publication.

   Because IANA generally waits for the IESG to approve an Internet-
   Draft before allocating values for it, authors sometimes use
   unassigned values for pre-publication testing.  However, requesting
   or suggesting a value in a document does not place the value on hold.
   If the assumed value is no longer available when the document is
   ready for allocation, early implementations that rely on that value
   will be incompatible with implementations that follow the RFC, which
   will use the IANA-allocated value.  This outcome undermines the
   primary goal of standards: interoperable implementations.

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   This memo defines an early code point allocation process that enables
   pre-RFC testing.  Using this process, eligible IETF Stream documents
   may receive time-limited allocations prior to IESG approval.  When
   appropriate, these early allocations can be renewed, if necessary,
   and carried through to the final published specification.

   This memo also defines an early allocation process for standards-
   related organizations that need assignments from "Specification
   Required" registries before they can meet the policy's publication
   requirements ([I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis], Section 4.6).

1.1.  Changes Since RFC 7120

   This is the third edition of the document that describes the policy
   for early allocations.  This edition, which obsoletes [RFC7120],
   makes two major changes: 1) it creates an early allocation procedure
   for standards-related organizations that need "Specification
   Required" allocations before a specification can be published, and 2)
   it extends the term of registration for all early allocations from
   one year to two.  It also creates a registry of standards-related
   organizations recognized by the IESG; clarifies aspects of the time-
   limited allocation renewal process; and notes that where registries
   require both document publication and expert approval for permanent
   registration, IANA requests expert approval for early allocation as
   well.

2.  Permanent Allocation for Internet-Drafts (and Other Drafts)

   If a document's desired code points come from a "First Come First
   Served" or "Expert Review" space, authors can request permanent
   registration from IANA at any time, regardless of document origin or
   status.  Some "Specification Required" registries also make permanent
   registration available to Internet-Drafts, provided a designated
   expert approves the request.

   However, registry-specific eligibility criteria may apply, and IESG-
   designated experts may choose to postpone their decision until the
   document advances.  Authors of documents adopted by IETF working
   groups should also confirm that the group supports early
   registration.

   While permanent allocations for documents that are still in
   development could be described as "early," the term "early
   allocation" is generally used to describe the time-limited
   allocations described in Section 3.

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   Temporary registration in a "First Come First Served" or "Expert
   Review" registry is available only when the registry has its own
   bespoke early allocation procedure, as with the IS-IS process defined
   in [RFC7370], Section 4.

3.  Conditions for Time-Limited Early Allocation

   The term "early allocation" is generally used to refer to the process
   that allows for temporary but renewable assignments from registries
   that would ordinarily require an IESG-approved Internet-Draft, as
   described in Section 3.1.  This document also establishes a process
   for standards-related organizations that need "Specification
   Required" allocations from IANA before publication (Section 3.2).

   If time-limited early allocation is not appropriate for a
   "Specification Required" registry, or for any registry that requires
   RFC publication, IANA should be instructed to attach a note that
   says, "The temporary early allocation policy described by [this RFC]
   does not apply to this registry."

3.1.  Early Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts

   The following conditions must hold before IANA can process a request
   for early allocation of code points that would otherwise require an
   Internet-Draft approved for publication by the IESG:

   a.  The code points must come from a space that requires RFC
       publication.  Most registries of this type use the "RFC
       Required," "IETF Review," and/or "Standards Action" registration
       procedures defined by [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis], but some use
       combined or custom procedures.  Additionally, this process can be
       applied to requests for early assignment from a "Specification
       Required" registry under the following conditions:

       *  The registry does not accept Internet-Drafts for permanent
          registration

       *  If approved by the IESG, the specification will be published
          as an IETF Stream RFC

       *  IANA can obtain expert approval, as described in
          Section 3.1.1.1

   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.

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   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.

3.1.1.  Process for Early Allocation

   There are three processes associated with early allocation for IETF
   Stream Internet-Drafts: 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 AD."

3.1.1.1.  Request

   The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code
   points for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts is described below:

   1.  The authors (or 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 3.1 are met, particularly
       conditions (c) and (d).

   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 AD(s).  The AD(s) may apply judgment to the request,
       especially if there is a risk of registry depletion.

   5.  If the ADs 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.

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   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 expiration date is also recorded in
       the registry and made visible to the public until the draft is
       submitted to the IESG for consideration.

   Note that documents should not associate new code points with
   specific numeric values until IANA has allocated those values.

3.1.1.2.  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 3.1.1.3 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.

   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" indicator from the registration.

3.1.1.3.  Expiry

   As described in Section 3.1.1.1, 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 recommend deprecating the code point; completely de-allocating
   it, making it available for assignment again; or leaving the

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   allocation in place, but with its "temporary" marker, and an
   expiration date indicating that it is no longer valid.  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.  An expired
   early allocation is therefore 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.

3.2.  Early Allocation for Standards-Related Organizations

   If a standards-related organization needs one or more code points
   from a "Specification Required" registry before the specification can
   be published, and the IESG-designated expert is satisfied that the
   document will be published, the expert can recommend a renewable two-
   year early allocation.  The registry will indicate that the
   allocation is temporary and list its expiration date.

   To qualify for early allocation, the organization must be listed in
   the "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" registry
   described in Section 3.2.  If the expert approves the allocation, but
   the organization has not yet been registered, IANA will ask the IESG
   for permission to add the organization to the registry.

   The organization is responsible for notifying IANA that the document
   has been published.  In the absence of such notification, IANA will
   ask the organization about the status of the document before the
   allocation expires.  If publication is still pending, IANA will ask
   the organization whether they wish to renew the allocation or allow
   it to expire.  If the organization chooses to renew, IANA will ask
   the expert to approve the renewal.

   If the expert cannot approve renewal, or if the organization chooses
   to allow the registration to expire, the expert will determine
   whether the allocation should be marked as "deprecated," marked as
   "obsoleted," left in place with the original expiration date, or
   deleted (in which case any registered value would be returned to the
   pool of unassigned values).

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA will continue to register approved early allocations as
   described in this document, requesting IESG-designated expert
   approval when the registry requires it; track and report expiring
   early allocations; and initiate the early allocation renewal process.
   IANA will also ask the IESG to approve additions to the "IESG-
   Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" registry as needed.

4.1.  IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organization Registry

   IANA will make the following changes to the registry at [IESG-REG],
   originally created as a list of organizations approved by the IESG
   for standards-tree media type registration:

   *  Change the name of the registry and registry group from
      "Standards-related organizations that have registered Media Types
      in the Standards Tree" to "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related
      Organizations"

   *  List this document as an additional reference for the registry,
      leaving the reference to [RFC6838] in place

   Existing registrations will be grandfathered.

   When the IESG formally recognizes an organization as a standards-
   related organization, whether to confirm eligibility for standards-
   tree media type registration, the early allocation procedure
   described in Section 3.2, or any future procedure requiring such
   recognition, IANA will add the organization to the repurposed
   registry.

   Registered organizations will be eligible for any procedure that
   requires IESG recognition of this type.  If necessary, however, the
   registry could eventually be restructured to indicate that an
   organization's eligibility is restricted to specific registries or
   procedures.

5.  Security Considerations

   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 is an important

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   safeguard, and ADs with any concerns are strongly recommended to
   escalate the issue for IESG-wide discussion.

   If a procedure defined by this document introduces additional
   security or other concerns, IANA may request that the IESG suspend
   that procedure at any time.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis]
              Baber, A. and S. Tanamal, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
              Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-02, 18 June
              2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              ianabis-rfc8126bis-02>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7370]  Ginsberg, L., "Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
              Registry", RFC 7370, DOI 10.17487/RFC7370, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370>.

   [IESG-REG] IANA, "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iesg-recognized-
              organizations/>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Thank you to Kireeti Kompella, Alex Zinin, and Michelle Cotton for
   authoring RFC 4020 and RFC 7120.  Thanks to Kim Davies for his help
   in revising this edition.

Authors' Addresses

   Amanda Baber (editor)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   PTI/ICANN

Baber & Tanamal          Expires 7 January 2027                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation                July 2026

   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 7 January 2027                [Page 10]