Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2012-07-31
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          M. Cotton
Internet-Draft                                 Internet Assigned Numbers
Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved)                           Authority (IANA)
Intended status: BCP                                            B. Leiba
Expires: February 2, 2013                            Huawei Technologies
                                                               T. Narten
                                                         IBM Corporation
                                                          August 1, 2012

     Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
                   draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-00

Abstract

   Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
   other well-known values.  Even after a protocol has been defined and
   deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (such as for
   a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
   transform for IPsec).  To ensure that such quantities have consistent
   values and interpretations across all implementations, their
   assignment must be administered by a central authority.  For IETF
   protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA).

   In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs
   guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be
   assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made.  If
   IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace,
   IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that
   role.  This document discusses issues that should be considered in
   formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides
   guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in
   documents that place demands on IANA.

   This document obsoletes RFC 5226.

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

Cotton, et al.          Expires February 2, 2013                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     IANA Considerations Section in RFCs       August 2012

   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 February 2, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (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.

Cotton, et al.          Expires February 2, 2013                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     IANA Considerations Section in RFCs       August 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Terminology Used In This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  The Motivation for Designated Experts  . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  The Role of the Designated Expert  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Designated Expert Reviews  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle  . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Creating a Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.1.  Policy: Private Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.2.  Policy: Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.3.  Policy: Hierarchical Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.1.4.  Policy: First Come First Served  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.1.5.  Policy: Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.1.6.  Policy: Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.1.7.  Policy: RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.1.8.  Policy: IETF Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Show full document text