Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2013-03-29
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                                                     ICANN
BCP: 26                                                         B. Leiba
Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved)                        Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Best Current Practice                         T. Narten
Expires: September 28, 2013                              IBM Corporation
                                                          March 29, 2013

     Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
                   draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-02

Abstract

   Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
   to identify various protocol parameters.  To ensure that the values
   used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote
   interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central
   authority.  For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

   To manage a given namespace prudently, IANA needs guidance describing
   the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as
   when and how modifications to existing values can be made.  This
   document defines a framework for the documentation of these
   guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the
   guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues that
   are likely in the operation of a registry.

   This is the third edition, and 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
   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 September 28, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Cotton, Leiba & Narten Expires September 28, 2013               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    IANA Considerations Section in RFCs         March 2013

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology Used In This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Documentation Requirements for Registries  . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy  . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.1.  Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . .  8
       2.2.2.  Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1.  Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Updating Existing Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.1.  Private Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.2.  Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  Hierarchical Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.4.  First Come First Served  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.5.  Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.6.  Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.7.  RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.8.  IETF Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.9.  Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.10. IESG Approval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.1.  The Motivation for Designated Experts  . . . . . . . . . . 17
Show full document text