The Use of Registries
draft-wilde-registries-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Erik Wilde | ||
| Last updated | 2016-02-01 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wilde-registries-00
Network Working Group E. Wilde
Internet-Draft February 1, 2016
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 4, 2016
The Use of Registries
draft-wilde-registries-00
Abstract
Registries on the Internet and the Web fulfill a wide range of tasks,
ranging from low-level networking aspects such as packet type
identifiers, all the way to application-level protocols and
standards. This document summarizes some of the reasons of why and
how to use registries, and how some of them are operated. It serves
as a informative reference for specification writers considering
whether to create and manage a registry, allowing them to better
understand some of the issues associated with certain design
discussions.
Note to Readers
Please discuss this draft on the apps-discuss mailing list [1].
Online access to all versions and files is available on GitHub [2].
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 August 4, 2016.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. TCP/UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Web Linking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Why to use Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Openness and Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Limited Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Design/Usage Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Identifier Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Identifier Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Documentation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Centralized Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. When to use Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. How to use Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Implementation Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Registry Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Registry Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Registry History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Runtime vs. Design-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Registry Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Technologies and standards in computer networking have long used the
concept of a "Registry" as a place where well-known information is
available and managed. In most case, the main reason to use a
registry is to create a technology or standard that has stable parts
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
(the technology/standard itself), as well as some parts that are
supposed to evolve while the technology/standard itself remains
stable and unchanged.
A registry essentially is a pattern of how to separate those two
aspects of a technology/standard, allowing the technology/standard to
remain stable, while the parts of it referencing the registry can
evolve over time by changing the registry contents. For
specification writers, this has proven to be a useful and successful
pattern. The "Protocol Registries" maintained by the "Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)" have steadily increased in number.
At the time of writing (early 2016), the IANA Protocol Registry [5]
contains 1903 individual registries. This number indicates that
registries as a "protocol specification pattern" are quite popular
and successful.
Deciding if a specification should use a registry is not an easy
task. It involves identifying those parts that should be kept stable
(in the specification itself), and those that should be managed in
one or more registries for ongoing management and evolution. Even
after identifying this split, it is necessary to define how exactly
the registry part(s) should be managed, involving questions such as
submission procedures, review processes, revocation/change
management, and access to the registry contents for the worldwide
developer community.
This document is intended to provide an overview to specification
developers in terms of why, when, and how to use registries. It is
not meant to provide definitive guidance, but mostly intended as a
reference to consider the different ways in which the general
"registry pattern" can be used, and what the possible side-effects on
some of these solutions may be.
2. Examples
The following list of examples is intended to be illustrative of some
of the existing registries, what kind of identifiers they are using,
and how they are managed. This list is not intended to highlight
these registries in any special way other than explaining some of the
specifics of the managed namespaces. As mentioned above, the list of
IANA-managed registries is long (around 2000 individual registries),
and the examples listed here have been selected somewhat randomly to
illustrate certain points.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
2.1. TCP/UDP Port Numbers
The registry for TCP/UDP port numbers [3] is one of the oldest well-
known registries on the Internet. Because of its core importance for
how the Internet functions, it has been around for a long time, there
is a long history about managing and running it, and thus the most
up-to-date document about it is relatively new (RFC 6335 [3] from
August 2011).
The namespace of ports is a very limited one. Port numbers in TCP
and UDP are 16-bit numbers, yielding a namespace of 65'536 port
numbers. The port numbers are subdivided into three ranges of system
ports (0-1023), user ports (1024-49151), and dynamic ports
(49152-65535). IANA only treats system and user port numbers as
assignable, whereas dynamic port numbers cannot be assigned at all.
The TCP/UDP port number registry is a good example for a very limited
and very popular namespace, and thus managing this registry follows a
very disciplined review process. RFC 6335 [3] specifies very
specific guidance about assignment, de-assignment, reuse, revocation,
and transfer of numbers. This level of detail may not be required
for all registries, but it is a good demonstration of what may be
necessary in case of constrained and popular namespaces.
2.2. Language Tags
The ability to identify human languages is important for many
scenarios and applications on the Internet, and thus RFC 4646 [1]
defines how to do this. The specification uses a registry to manage
the actual language identifiers, because this list is constantly
evolving and thus better separated from the standard defining the
language tag format itself.
Apart from the primary language subtag (identifying for example the
English language with the identifier "en"), the language tag format
supports additional subtags for extended languages, scripts, regions,
variants, extensions, and private use. The primary language subtag
uses 2- and 3-letter identifiers that are taken from ISO 639 [4].
There is a provision for longer identifiers to exist (and be directly
registered with IANA), but the goal is to manage actual registration
through ISO 639, and use the namespace and identifiers established by
this standard.
While the namespace of the primary language subtags is rather
restricted (2- and 3-letter identifiers), IANA's registry itself does
not need to be directly concerned with its use and management, as
this is handled by ISO through their ISO 639 process.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
Without going into the details of how all the other subtags
namespaces are defined and registered, it should suffice to mention
that one of the main goals of RFC 4646 [1] is to ensure that the
language registry of ISO 639 (as well as some others, such as the
script registry of ISO 15924) and language tags as used on the
Internet stay in sync. Thus, the management of the namespaces
created for language tags by RFC 4646 [1] is mostly delegated to ISO,
instead of being managed by IANA itself.
Nevertheless, RFC 4646 [1] does make provisions about the stability
of entries in the various namespaces, so that the meaning of language
tags remains stable over time. This includes provisions that
existing values are not going to be changed, and that even values
withdrawn by ISO remain valid and will simply be marked as
"deprecated" in the respective IANA registry.
2.3. Web Linking
Web links can be typed by link relation types, and RFC 5988 [2]
defines a model for how this can be done, and a registry for well-
known values. One interesting aspect of the model is that the value
space is divided: On the one had there are well-known and registered
values identified by strings, and on the other hand it is possible to
use URIs, in which case no registration is required. This means that
the namespace for the link relation type registry is that of strings,
meaning that it is not highly constrained.
With a rather large namespace, it is possible to accommodate a larger
set of entries. However, it is still required that additions to the
registry are done by following a process that requires describing the
requested entries, and referring to a document that contains their
definition and some context.
In addition, RFC 5988 [2] does define some constraints for how
registered link relation types have to be defined. A submission
process and reviews by designated experts are used to make sure that
these constraints are met when new entries are submitted for
inclusion in the registry.
3. Why to use Registries
Establishing and using a registry can be done for a number of
reasons. The following sections list some of these reasons, and in
many cases, registries are used for at least some of the reasons
described here.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
3.1. Openness and Extensibility
Registries separate a specification into a stable part that is
represented by the specification itself, and a dynamic part that is
represented by one or more registries that are established by the
specification. This pattern allows a specification to remain stable,
while still having well-defined parts that are allowed to evolve over
time.
In order for this pattern to work well, the specification should
clearly state what implementations should do when encountering
unknown values in those locations where allowable values are managed
in a registry. The two most popular processing models are to either
silently ignore such a value and continue as if the value was not
present at all, or to raise an error and notify higher layers of the
fact that something unknown was encountered.
Depending on the way values are managed, it is also possible to
distinguish between values that are supposed to be registered, and
those that are not supposed to be registered and have to be
considered unregistered extensions. The link relation types
described in Section 2.3 use such an approach, defining that a link
relation is either a string and supposed to be a registered value, or
a URI in which case it is not supposed to be a registered value.
This strategy works when it is possible to clearly separate the
namespace of the place where values are expected into ones that are
considered to be registered, and those that are not.
3.2. Limited Namespaces
Historically, registries started managing the very limited namespace
of identifier fields in protocol packets or other low-level
mechanisms such as the port numbers described in Section 2.1, often
limited to a small number of bits or bytes. Carefully managing this
very limited set of available identifiers was important, as was a way
to allow new values to be added without having to update the protocol
specification itself.
The higher the level is on which registries are used, the more likely
it is that namespaces at least on the technical level are not very
constrained. For example, the link relation types described in
Section 2.3 are using strings as identifiers without imposing a
length limitations, meaning that the set of possible identifiers is
virtually inexhaustible. However, even in this case, the set of
helpful and meaningful identifiers (i.e., names that are human-
readable and partly self-describing) is limited, and thus even in
this case, the realistically useful namespace is much more limited
that the theoretical one.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
3.3. Design/Usage Review
Registries are established in the context of a given specification,
and provide a mechanism to make this specification extensible by
allowing the registry to evolve over time. However, the context of
the specification very often has a clear design rationale for why a
registry is established for a certain set of values. Any value added
or changed in the registry should fit into this context, and having a
registry provides an opportunity to have design and usage reviews
before the registry gets updated.
For design and usage reviews to work well, the most crucial aspect is
that the context of the registry is well-defined, and states clearly
what kind of expectations the design and usage review will be
checking. Often this review process is implemented using a mailing
list and designated experts, so that registration requests as well as
results of the deign and usage review are done openly and
transparently.
3.4. Identifier Design
Depending on the namespace, managing the registry namespace may
follow certain guidelines. For numeric values, there may be certain
number ranges that are supposed to be used in certain ways. For
string values, there may be some convention or best practices on how
to mint identifiers so that the namespace contains values that are
following these principles.
Note that this is different from the design and usage review
Section 3.3. Whereas the design and usage review is about testing
whether the meaning associated with a new value follow the
constraints defined in the context that established the registry, the
identifier design simply checks for how the registered values are
chosen. It thus is a lower bar than a design and usage review, but
still requires a review process that allows to propose new values,
and provides some feedback about whether these values follow the
guidelines or not.
3.5. Identifier Lifecycle
The main reason for registries to exist in contrast to just including
a set of predefined values in the underlying technology/standard
itself is the ability for these values to change over time. However,
registries only make sense if there is some sense of stability to
their contents, so that looking at existing registry values at some
point in time can be assumed to be a reasonable snapshot for some
amount of time.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
Usually, registry entries are added at a modest pace, and an
implementation not supporting the latest additions shouldn't fail,
but simply implement some default behavior when encountering
unsupported values. This pattern ensures that the namespace can
evolve separately from the landscape of implementations.
However, adding identifiers is the easiest aspects of registry
updates. Things get more complicated when it comes to updating and
removing entries. The reason why these things are more complicated
is that implementations depending on an identifier having certain
semantics will behave incorrectly when the registry has been updated
for this identifier with either a change in semantics, or a
withdrawal of the entry.
For this reason, it often makes sense to include rules in the
management of the registry about if/how entries can be updated, or
removed. One popular approach is disallow updates with breaking
changes, and to allow withdrawal but keep the identifier and mark it
as "deprecated". This way it can be ensured that no incompatible
entry will be created by somebody using an identifier that was
previously used and removed.
The exact way how this process is defined depends on the context and
purpose of the registry, and also on the namespace size. Tightly
constrained namespaces mean that values probably should be managed
more carefully, so that the registry does not run out of values.
Also, while impossible to predict reliably, it is also important to
look at the possible lifetime of implementations (that will use
snapshots of the registry at some point in time), and on the long-
term effects of having outdated registry snapshots in
implementations.
3.6. Documentation Requirements
Registering a value means that people encountering this value should
be able to learn about what it represents. This means that there
should be documentation associated with it that can be used to learn
more about the value's meaning. Many registries at the very least
require a very short explanation to be submitted with a registration
request, so that the registry itself can list those texts as helpful
explanations.
Going further, many registries also require links to more detailed
specifications, so that people looking for complete explanations of
the meaning of registered values can follow those links and will find
specifications or at least explanations. The exact requirement on
what such a link must refer to is something that the specification
creating the registry has to define. One popular requirement is that
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
it must be publicly available information, so that anybody looking
for it can openly access it.
3.7. Centralized Lookup
With a registry containing all current values (and possibly listing
changed/deprecated ones as well) along with some registration
metadata, they provide valuable information for anybody looking for
information about registered values in the registry namespace. All
IANA protocol registries [5] are openly accessible on the Web,
allowing everybody to lookup the current state of all these
registries.
Even though centralized lookup is an important aspect of openness and
extensibility Section 3.1, the usual usage model of these lookup
facilities is to use them at design-time rather than at runtime
Section 5.5. This means that the central lookup facilities are meant
to be used by developers, and not by the implementations created by
those developers. For the latter model a much more scalable
infrastructure would be required, and thus it is important to
consider the fact if the namespace managed by a registry fits this
model of being useful for developer lookup at design-time, and for
value lookup at runtime.
4. When to use Registries
Based on the examples given in Section 2 and the possible reasons
described in Section 3, the next question is how for designers to
decide when they should establish one or more registries to
complement a technology/standard. All the issues describes in
Section 3 are reasonable motivations, and in many cases it is more
than just one of them.
For users of a technology/standard, it is helpful if the
specification clearly describes which reasons were most important
when deciding to establish one or more registries. This is even more
true for users who are looking to update the registry, because they
should be aware of the reasons that were considered when the registry
was created.
For every registry that is established, it is helpful if a
specification explains the following general aspects:
What were the main design rationales behind establishing the
registry? The reasons described in Section 3 may be a good
starting point to pick from.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
What are the management policies for the registry? Depending on a
variety of factors such as namespace size, expected frequency of
updated, level of review before acceptance, required level of
documentation, and possibly others, management can be rather
lightweight or a carefully managed process.
What is the size of the namespace and the expected rate of how it
will be used and possibly exhausted?
5. How to use Registries
...
5.1. Implementation Support
... implement a snapshot, fail over in a controlled way ...
5.2. Registry Application
... template ...
5.3. Registry Stability
... changes beyond editorial ones ...
... removal of a registry entry ...
5.4. Registry History
... history of all registry updates ...
5.5. Runtime vs. Design-Time
... snapshot ...
5.6. Registry Access
... API ...
6. References
[1] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
Languages", RFC 4646, DOI 10.17487/RFC4646, September
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4646>.
[2] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registries February 2016
[3] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[4] International Organization for Standardization, "Code for
the representation of names of languages, 1st edition",
ISO Standard 639, 1988.
[5] "IANA Protocol Registry", <http://www.iana.org/protocols>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by ...
Author's Address
Erik Wilde
Email: erik.wilde@dret.net
URI: http://dret.net/netdret/
Wilde Expires August 4, 2016 [Page 11]