Network Working Group C. Groves
Internet Draft NTEC Australia
Intended status: BCP Y. Lin
Expires: November 2009 Huawei
May 25, 2009
H.248/MEGACO Registration Procedures
draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
Abstract
This document updates the H.248/MEGACO IANA Package Registration
procedures in order to better describe the Package registration
process and to provide a more formal review and feedback process.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 2
2. Conventions used in this document ............................ 4
3. Formal Syntax ................................................ 4
4. Security Considerations ...................................... 4
5. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations .......................... 5
5.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert ............. 5
5.2. Package Registration Procedure .......................... 6
5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure ....................... 8
5.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure ............. 9
5.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure ..................... 9
6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 10
6.1. New IANA Package Registration .......................... 10
6.2. IANA Error Code Registration ........................... 11
6.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration ................. 11
6.4. IANA Profile Name Registration ......................... 12
7. References .................................................. 13
7.1. Normative References ................................... 13
7.2. Informative References ................................. 13
8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 13
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 13
1. Introduction
Since the initial development of H.248/MEGACO a number of
organizations have made use of the H.248/MEGACO protocol Package
mechanism in order to allow a certain function to be controlled by
H.248/MEGACO. The H.248/MEGACO package mechanism was in part
introduced to allow organizations who had an in depth knowledge in a
particular functional area to independently produce a package on this
functionality. This acknowledged the fact that neither the IETF
MEGACO Working Group nor the ITU-T Study Group 16 possessed in depth
knowledge in all areas. Whilst this approach has been successful in
the number and range of packages produced, in some cases these
Packages were/are not fully aligned with H.248/MEGACO principles.
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
Once a Package has been published and registered it is problematic to
rectify any issues.
The introduction of problems/inconsistencies was in part caused by
the fact that the Packages were not fully reviewed by H.248/MEGACO
experts. In fact the IANA H.248/MEGACO registration process did not
actually specify that an in depth review should take place.
The current H.248/MEGACO Package registration process was defined
when ITU-T Study Group 16 and the IETF Megaco Working Groups were
both active in Megaco/H.248 standardization and produced nearly all
the registered Packages. Packages were reviewed in the IETF MEGACO
Working Group and the Working Group chair was the IESG appointed
expert in charge of the review of the requests for H.248 Package
registration. This meant that H.248 Packages underwent an informal
review before being registered. However this has changed.
The current situation is that now the IETF Megaco working group is
disbanded and new H.248/MEGACO development typically occurs through
Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 (not withstanding email discussion
on the IETF MEGACO mailing list). This move to ITU-T defined
Recommendations is discussed in [RFC5125].
Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
definition and IANA registration rules are updated to introduce a
formal review step before the Package registration process is
completed and ideally before the Package is published. This process
would only be applicable to public Packages.
As part of the Package development process Package developers are
encouraged to send their Package for review to the ITU-T Study Group
Question Rapporteur responsible for the H.248 sub-series (Question 3
of Study Group 16 at the time of writing). When registering the
Package with IANA, package developers are required to send a copy of
the package for review by the IESG appointed expert. It is
recommended to register the Package before final approval by the
group in question in order to solicit feedback on the quality of
their Package. Where ever possible this review will be done in
conjunction with other H.248/MEGACO experts (e.g. in Q.3/16 and/or
the MEGACO mailing list).
The existing IANA Package registration process is a two step process.
When Packages are first registered they receive the status of "In
Progress (IP)". This allows Package developers to request a PackageID
before the document is fully approved. When the document is approved
then a change of status to "Final", may be requested. The new
procedure introduces the step that the IESG appointed expert is
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
consulted before a change of status is made. If the Package has been
reviewed and is acceptable then the status may be changed to "Final".
However if the package has not been provided for review or it has
outstanding comments then the status SHALL remain at "IP".
The goal of the updated text is to define a process that provides a
timely technical review of packages to ensure that H.248/MEGACO
packages are of good quality and minimize duplication.
The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name"
registration procedures have been included for completeness and to
make explicit the role of the IESG reviewer. These procedures align
with the considerations documented in [H.248amm1] and with [RFC3525]
(with the exception of Profile Names which did not appear in this
version).
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in RFC-5234 [RFC5234].
Text encoded PackageIDs shall conform to the "PackageName" encoding
in H.248.1 [H248amm1] Annex B. Repeated below for convienience:
PackageName = NAME
NAME = ALPHA *63(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_")
Note: A digit is not allowed as the first character of a package
name.
4. Security Considerations
Updating the IANA H.248/MEGACO package registration procedures has no
additional security implications. Security for the H.248/MEGACO
protocol over IP transports is discussed in H.248.1 section 10
[H.248amm1].
As of this date there have been no recorded security issues arising
out of the registration or use of packages. Whilst packages may
define extra procedures and code points these are done within the
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
framework of the core H.248.1 specification. It is not possible to
update the H.248.1 core protocol through a package specification. The
use of the H.248.1 core protocol is agreed between a MGC and a MG.
H.248 ServiceChange procedures establish a H.248 control association
between the MGC and MG. To establish an association there must be a
level of trust between the MGC and MG. In the context of this control
(and trust) association the elements
(properties/signals/events/statistics) from the Packages are conveyed
between the MGC and MG. An MGC or MG will only act upon elements that
it knows. If it does not understand a PackageID or package element
then an error response is returned only in the context of the control
association.
If a malicious Package Specification is implemented in a MGC or MG it
would be unlikely to cause problems. As H.248 is a master slave
protocol, if the malicious package was implemented in the MGC and not
the MG there would be no action because the MG would not understand
the PackageID (and elements). If the malicious package was
implemented on the MG there would be no effect because the MGC would
never command the MG to use it. If the malicious package was
implemented in both the MGC and MG then there's a wider non-H.248
issue that someone has managed to install software on both the MGC
and the MG. It is highly unlikely for such a person to ask IANA for a
PackageID when they could use any one they want.
Therefore it is in this respect that updates to the IANA H.248/MEGACO
package registration procedures are deemed to have no additional
security impacts.
Requesters and the Expert reviewer should ensure that the package
does not introduce any additional security issues. Requesters for
public packages for a particular standards development organization
must be authorized by that organization to request a Package
registration.
5. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations
For public registered Packages, Error Codes, ServiceChangeReasons and
Profile Names review by an Expert reviewer is required before IANA
performs a registration. Private Packages do not require the same
level of review. The sections below outline the considerations for
Expert review.
5.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert
The IESG shall remain responsible for allocating the H.248/MEGACO
expert. It is recommended that this person be involved in ongoing
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
H.248/MEGACO development. As such it is recommended that
identification of the IESG expert be done in consultation with the
ITU-T Study Group/Question responsible for the H.248 sub-series of
Recommendations, Q.3/16 at the time of writing.
5.2. Package Registration Procedure
Package requesters are encouraged to review their work against
H.248.1 section 12 [H.248amm1] "Package Definition" and are
encouraged to use the "Package Definition Template" provided in
H.248.1 Appendix II.
The process for registering a public Package is deemed to be
"specification required" as per [RFC5226]. As such once the initial
checks occur Package requesters for public packages under development
shall send the package text to IANA. They are also encouraged to send
the package to the ITU-T Question/Study Group responsible for the
H.248 sub-series of Recommendations (Q.3/16 at the time of writing)
for review. Updated contact information can be found in the latest
version of the H.248 Sub-series Implementors' Guide. This should
occur as soon as practicable after the rough draft of the definition
is completed and at least before the package is approved in order to
ensure the package is consistent with H.248 methodologies and package
design principles.
In order to register private packages, a specification is not
required but is encouraged.
Package requesters are encouraged to request registration as early as
practicable in the design process, to reserve a binary ID. Binary
IDs shall be published in the document defining the package.
Once the initial or final request for a Package registration is
received by IANA it will be forwarded to the IESG appointed Expert
for review. During the review the input package and details will be
compared to the Package template for completeness, as well as being
compared against protocol syntax and procedures. It will be compared
against existing work to see that it does not duplicate existing
functionality. It will be reviewed to see that any potential security
issues are addressed. The Expert reviewer will then work towards a
resolution of any issues with the Package requester. The IESG
appointed Expert may complete the review in consultation with other
H.248 experts (i.e. Currently Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 and
via email to IETF Megaco email list). If the package is deemed
suitable, the IESG appointed Expert shall issue a statement
indicating approval, copied to IANA.
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
The IESG Expert Reviewer will ensure the following considerations are
met to register a package with the IANA:
1) A unique string name, unique serial number and version number is
registered for each package. The string name is used as the PackageID
for text encoding. The serial number is used as the PackageID for
binary encoding. Public packages MUST be given serial numbers in the
range 0x0001 to 0x7fff. Private packages MUST be given serial
numbers in the range 0x8000 to 0xffff. Serial number 0 is reserved.
The unique string name and unique serial number MAY either be
requested by the package requester or if not requested, assigned by
the IANA.
2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an email
and postal addresses for that contact. The contact information shall
be updated by the defining organization as necessary.
3) The public package requester shall provide a reference to a
document that describes the package, which should be public:
a) The document shall specify the version of the package that it
describes.
b) If the document is public, it should be located on a public web
server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a
mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be
returned.
c) If the document is not public, it must be made available for
review by the IESG appointed Expert (without requiring an NDA) at the
time of the application.
Note: The document does not have to be publicly available at the time
of the registration request, however the document shall be provided
and available for review by the IESG appointed Expert. Once approved
by a standards body the package SHOULD be made publicly available
however the package MAY remain not public.
For private packages a contact email address for the package
registration shall be provided.
4) Packages registered by other than recognized standards bodies
shall have a minimum package name length of 8 characters.
5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served basis if
all other conditions are met.
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
Status - "In Progress" indicates that the package has not been fully
reviewed and approved therefore may contain errors or may not be
consistent with H.248 principles. "Final" indicates that the Package
has been reviewed and approved and is stable. New packages shall be
registered with a status of "IP". Once the Package has been finalized
(i.e. approved according to the procedures of the Package Requester's
Organisation)they should contact IANA in order to update the status
to "Final".
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.
The IANA will assign a serial number to each package meeting the
conditions of registration (except for an update of an existing
package, which retains the serial number of the package it is
updating), in consecutive order of registration.
5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure
Error Code requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
the error code. Documentation addressing the considerations below
shall be provided (i.e. Specification required as per [RFC5226]). The
IANA shall then forward the request to the IESG appointed Expert for
review.
The following considerations shall be met to register an error code
with IANA:
1) An error number and a one-line (80-character maximum) string are
registered for each error.
2) A complete description of the conditions under which the error is
detected shall be included in a publicly available document. The
description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the error
from all other existing error codes.
3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
have a stable URL.
4) Error numbers registered by recognized standards bodies shall have
3- or 4-character error numbers.
5) Error numbers registered by all other organizations or individuals
shall have 4-character error numbers.
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
6) Only the organization or individual that originally defined it (or
their successors or assigns) can modify an error number definition.
If the modification leads to a change in the error code number, error
code name or error string the Error Code modifier shall send a
request to IANA to register the update. This request shall be treated
as a new error code request which will involve an Expert review.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.
5.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure
ServiceChange Reason requesters shall send a request to the IANA to
register the ServiceChange Reason. Documentation addressing the
considerations below shall be provided (i.e. Specification required
as per [RFC5226]). The IANA shall then forward the request to the
IESG appointed Expert for review.
The following considerations shall be met to register ServiceChange
reason with IANA:
1) A one-phrase, 80-character maximum, unique reason code is
registered for each reason.
2) A complete description of the conditions under which the reason is
used shall be included in a publicly available document. The
description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the reason
from all other existing reasons.
3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
have a stable URL.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.
5.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure
Profile Name requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
the Profile Name. Documentation addressing the considerations below
shall be provided. The IANA shall then forward the request to the
IESG appointed Expert for review.
The following considerations shall be met to register a profile with
IANA:
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
1) A unique string name and version number (version may be omitted
when the profile name contains a wildcard) is registered for each
profile.
2) A contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall
be specified. The contact information shall be updated by the
defining organization as necessary.
3) Profiles registered by other than recognized standards bodies
shall have a minimum profile name length of 6 characters.
4) Profile names containing a wildcard "*" on the end of their names
shall be accepted if the first 6 characters are fully specified. It
is assumed that the organization that was issued with the profile
name will manage the namespace associated with the wildcard. IANA
shall not issue other profiles names within "name*" range.
All other profile names are first come-first served if all other
conditions are met.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.
6. IANA Considerations
This document describes an updated package registration procedure.
[RFC5226] has been considered in making the updates. This document
does not alter the tabular package, error code and service change
reason information in the Megaco/H.248 Packages registry.
The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name" IANA
considerations have been included for completeness. These
considerations align with the considerations documented in H.248.1
[H248amm1] and with [RFC3525] (with the exception of Profile Names
which did not appear in this version).
6.1. New IANA Package Registration
On the request for an initial or final Package registration the IANA
shall forward the received information (i.e. the Package Text
(Specification required as per [RFC5226]) to the IESG appointed
expert for review (See section 4.2).
After the review when instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the
IANA shall register the following information in the "Megaco/H.248
Packages" registry as described below:
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
1. Serial Number (Identity used for Binary Encoding, also known as
Binary ID)
2. Text Name (Identity used for Text Encoding, see section 3 for the
syntax)
3. Package version
4. Extension information - Binary ID and package version
5. Status* - IP ("In Progress") or Final
6. Package name, Reference and Contact information
IANA will maintain the currency and public availability of the
tabulation of public and private packages. Packages will be listed
in increasing order of serial number. The latest Package version is
entered, replacing the previous version in the registry.
6.2. IANA Error Code Registration
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
the received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. Error Code Number
2. Error Code Text String
3. Reference
6.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text and
required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
section 4.4).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. ServiceChange Reason Number
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
2. ServiceChange Reason Text String
3. Reference
6.4. IANA Profile Name Registration
On the request for a Profile Name registration, the IANA shall
forward to received request to the IESG appointed expert for review
(See section 4.5).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. Profile Name
2. Version
3. Reference/Contact
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P., "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
[H248amm1] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
protocol: Version 3", Amendment 1 to ITU-T Recommendation
H.248.1, April 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3525] Groves C., Pantaleo M., Anderson T. and Taylor T., "Gateway
Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.
[RFC5125] Taylor, T., "Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic", RFC
5125, February 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
8. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Christian Groves
NTEC Australia
Newport, Victoria
Australia
Email: Christian.Groves@nteczone.com
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures May 2009
Yangbo Lin
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen, Guangdong
P. R. China
Email: linyangbo@huawei.com
Groves Expires November 25, 2009 [Page 14]
