Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-04
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michelle Cotton , Barry Leiba , Dr. Thomas Narten | ||
| Last updated | 2014-05-16 (Latest revision 2013-11-12) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
plain text
xml
htmlized
pdfized
bibtex
|
||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-08)
Has Issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-08)
Ready with Issues
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-04.txt
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 make assignments in 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.
Authors
Michelle Cotton
Barry Leiba
Dr. Thomas Narten
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)