INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson, Ed.
Geoff Huston, Ed.
Olaf M. Kolkman, Ed.
Internet Architecture Board
Expires: August 2011 February 9, 2011
Intended Status: Best Current Practice
Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol
Parameter Registry Operators
<draft-iab-iana-06.txt>
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."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
Many IETF protocols make use of commonly-defined values that are
passed in messages or packets. To ensure consistent interpretation
of these values between independent implementations, there is a need
to ensure that the values and associated semantic intent are uniquely
defined. The IETF uses registry functions to record assigned
protocol parameter values and their associated semantic intent. For
each IETF protocol parameter it is current practice for the IETF to
delegate the role of protocol parameter registry operator to a
nominated entity. This document provides a description of, and the
requirements for, these delegated functions.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Proto-
col Parameter Registries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. IAB Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. IESG Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Role of the IETF Trust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. Role of the IAOC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Miscellaneous Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Appendix A: Considerations on the term IANA. . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Appendix B: IANA registries in context. . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Definition of an IETF Protocol Parameter Reg-
istry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Publication of Protocol Parameter Registry
Assignments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.3. Procedures Related to IETF Protocol Parameter
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.4. Registries for IETF Protocol Parameters. . . . . . . . . . 17
10.5. Current IETF Protocol Parameter Assignments. . . . . . . . 17
11. Appendix C: IAB Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
1. Overview
Many IETF protocols make use of commonly-defined values that are
passed within messages or packets. To ensure consistent
interpretation of these values between independent implementations,
there is a need to ensure that the values and associated semantic
intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses registries to record each
of the possible values of a protocol parameter and their associated
semantic intent. These registries, their registration policy, and
the layout of their content are defined in the so called "IANA
Consideration" sections of IETF documents.
The organizational separation between the IETF and its registry
operators is one that appears to be a relatively unique arrangement
in the context of standards development organizations (SDOs), and
similar arrangements of structural separation are not generally used
by other SDOs. SDOs that undertake a similar protocol parameter
registration function generally do so as part of their secretariat
service functions or their equivalent, thereby avoiding the overheads
of detailed coordination of activity across multiple distinct
organizations. However, this structural separation of roles exists
within several places in the IETF framework (e.g., the RFC Editor
function) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), on behalf of the
IETF, has the responsibility to define and manage the relationship
with the protocol registry operator role. This responsibility
includes the selection and management of the protocol parameter
registry operator, as well as management of the parameter
registration process and the guidelines for parameter allocation.
As with other SDOs, the IETF asserts full authority over the
management of all its protocol parameters and their registries. This
document describes the function of these registries as they apply to
individual protocol parameters defined by the IETF Internet Standards
Process [RFC2026] as to allow for an orderly implementation by the
Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) under guidance
from the IAB.
Below we provide a description of the requirement for these delegated
functions, which the IETF traditionally refers to as the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 1. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter
Registries
The IETF's longstanding practice is to outsource the management and
implementation of some important functions (e.g., [RFC5620]). The
protocol parameter registry function falls into this category of
outsourced functions, and what follows here the comprehensive and
normative description of the roles and responsibilities with respect
to the registration of IETF protocol parameters.
Specifically, this document describes the operation and role of a
delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, to be selected
and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
[RFC4071]. While there is generally a single Protocol Parameter
Registry Operator, additional Operators may be selected to implement
specific registries. This document also includes a description of
the roles of other bodies that interact with IETF protocol parameter
registry operators.
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 (e.g., for a
new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
algorithm for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority in a
mechanical manner. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by a
delegated Protocol Parameter Registry Operator. For any particular
protocol parameter there is a single delegated registry operator. In
the case of IP addresses and AS numbers, the IANA function resides at
the root of the number space, and a subsequent allocation hierarchy
exists below IANA. The next step in the hierarchy below IANA is the
Regional Internet Registries (RIR), which make further allocations of
those resources using policies established through the RIRs' bottom-
up policy development process.
2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role
The IETF Protocol Parameter registry function is undertaken under the
auspices of the Internet Architecture Board.
The roles of a Protocol Parameter registry operator are as follows:
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
o Review and Advise
* A registry operator may be requested to review
Internet-Drafts that are being considered by the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG), with the objective of
offering advice to the IESG regarding the contents of the
"IANA Considerations" section, whether such a section,
when required, is clear in terms of direction to the registry
operator, and whether the section is consistent with the
current published registry operator guidelines.
o Registry
* To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments.
* The delegated registry operator registers values for
Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the
criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, including
Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards, Best Current
Practice documents, and other RFCs that require protocol
parameter assignment.
If values for Internet protocol parameters were not specified,
or in case of ambiguity, the registry operator will continue
to assign and register only those protocol parameters that
have already been delegated to the operator, following past
and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise
directed in terms of operating practice by the IESG. In the
case of ambiguity, the registry operator is expected to
express the ambiguity and either suggest better text or ask
the appropriate parties for clarification.
* For each protocol parameter, the associated registry
includes:
+ a reference to the RFC document that describes the
parameter and the associated "IANA Considerations"
concerning the parameter, and
+ for each registration of a protocol parameter value,
the source of the registration and the date of the
registration, if the date of registration is known.
+ If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the
registry operator will seek and follow technical
guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where appropriate
the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the registry
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
operator.
* The registry operator will work with the IETF to develop any
missing criteria and procedures over time, which the registry
operator will adopt when so instructed by the IESG.
* Each protocol parameter registry operates as a public registry,
and the contents of the registry are openly available to the
public, on-line and free of charge.
* The registry operator assigns protocol parameter values in
accordance with the policy associated with the protocol
parameter, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert
Review" [RFC5226].
o Mailing Lists
* The registry operator maintains public mailing lists as
specified in IANA Considerations [RFC5226]. Such lists are
designated for the purpose of review of assignment proposals
in conjunction with a designated expert review function. In
addition, each protocol parameter registry operator should
maintain a mailing list that enables the registry staff of
the registry operator to be contacted by email. For example,
iana@iana.org currently provides this function for IANA.
o Liaison Activity
* The registry operator will nominate a liaison point of contact.
The registry operator, through this liaison, may be requested to
provide advice to the IESG on IETF protocol parameters as well
as the IANA Considerations section of Internet-Drafts that are
being reviewed for publication as an RFC. Where appropriate the
IESG will appoint an expert to advise the registry operator.
o Reporting
* The registry operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB
concerning the operational performance of the registry function.
As an example of the requirements for such reports the reader is
referred to a supplement to the "Memorandum of Understanding
Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority" [RFC2860] that was established by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC4071] and provides
service level agreement (SLA) guidelines under which the protocol
parameter registry, as implemented by ICANN, must operate.
* At the request of the chair of the IETF, IAB, or IAOC the
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
registry operator will undertake periodic reports to the IETF
Plenary concerning the status of the registry function.
* The registry operator will publish an annual report describing
the status of the function and a summary of performance
indicators.
o Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator
* All assigned values are to be published and made available free
of any charges.
* The assignment values may be redistributed without modification.
* Any intellectual property rights of the IETF Protocol Parameter
assignment information, including the IETF Protocol Parameter
registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust
[RFC4748].
2.2. IAB Role
An operator of an IETF Protocol Parameter registry undertakes the
role as a delegated function under the authority of the IAB.
The IAB has the responsibility to, from time to time, review the
current description of the registry function and direct the registry
operator to adopt amendments relating to its role and mode of
operation of the registry according to the best interests of the
IETF, and the Internet community in general.
The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to
undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter registry
operator for each IETF protocol parameter. Specifically, the IAB
defines the role and requirements for the desired functions (e.g., as
with the "RFC Editor Model" [RFC5620], and the IAB, the IAOC is
responsible for identifying a potential vendor, and once under
agreement managing the various aspects of the relationships with that
vendor. To be clear, the IAB is in the deciding role (e.g., for
appointment and termination), but must work in close consultation
with the IAOC.
The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions
of this delegated role. Such terms and conditions should ensure that
the registry operates in a manner that is fully conforment to the
functions described in this document. In addition, such terms and
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.2. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF
with respect to the registry contents and maintenance.
2.3. IESG Role
The IESG is responsible for the technical direction regarding entries
into IETF Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies
by which such technical directions are given (e.g., see Appendix B).
Technical direction itself is provided through the adoption of
directives within the "IANA Considerations" section of IETF RFC
documents, or through stand-alone "IANA Considerations" RFC
documents.
The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts that are offered for
publication as IETF-stream RFCs [RFC4844] include IANA Considerations
sections when needed, and that IANA Considerations sections conform
to the current published guidelines.
Since technical assessment is not a responsibility of the registry
operator the IESG is, as part of providing the technical direction,
responsible for identifying the technical experts that are required
to, where appropriate, review registration requests or resolve open
technical questions that relate to the registration of parameters.
The IESG will at its discretion organize the liaison activities with
the registry operator's liaison point of contact as to facilitate
clear communications and effective operation of the registry
function.
2.4. Role of the IETF Trust
The IETF Trust [RFC4748] was formed to act as the administrative
custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights
relating to the IETF Standards Process, a function that had
previously been performed by ISOC and the Corporation for National
Research Initiatives (CNRI).
Any intellectual property rights of IETF Protocol Parameter
assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and
all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf
of the IETF.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.4. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
The IETF Trust may make such regulations as appropriate for the
assignment values redistribution and registry publications.
2.5. Role of the IAOC
The IAOC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor in a
manner of their choosing based on IAB consultation, and managing the
various aspects of the relationships with that vendor.
In addition, the IAOC has the responsibility to ensure long-term
access, stability, and uniqueness across all such registries . This
responsibility is of particular significance in the event that a
relation with a protocol parameter registry operator is terminated.
3. Miscellaneous Considerations
The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF
Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies by which
such technical directions are given. The IESG is responsible, as part
of the document approval process for the IETF-stream RFCs [RFC4844],
for 'IANA Considerations' verification. For the other RFC streams the
approval bodies are responsible for verifying that the documents
include IANA Considerations sections when needed, and that IANA
Considerations sections conform to the current published guidelines.
In the case the that IANA considerations in non-IETF document streams
lead to a dispute the IAB has the final word.
4. Acknowledgements
This document is adapted from "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], and has been modified to
include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights, and the
roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF Protocol Parameter
registry function.
The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 4. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
by reviewers of earlier drafts of this document, including Scott
Bradner, Leslie Daigle, Thomas Narten, Ray Pelletier, and Alfred
Hoenes.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not propose any new protocols, and does not
introduce any new security considerations.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires no direct IANA actions in terms of the
creation or operation of a protocol parameter registry. However,
this document does define the roles and responsibilities of various
bodies who are responsible for, and associated with, the operation of
the protocol parameter registration functions for the IETF.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
STD 2, October 1994.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
RFC 2780, BCP 37, March 2000.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 7.2. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
[RFC2850] Carpenter, B., "Charter of the Internet Architecture
Board", RFC 2850, BCP 39, May 2000.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition
of New DHCP Options and Message Types", RFC 2939, BCP 43,
September 2000.
[RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
Procedures", RFC 2978, BCP 19, October 2000.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Wijnen, B., "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", RFC 4071,
April 2005.
[RFC4748] Bradner, S., "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF
Trust", RFC 4748, BCP 78, October 2006.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "The RFC Series and RFC
Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)",
RFC 5620, August 2009.
[IANA] Reynolds, J., "IANA Protocol Numbers and Assignment
Services", October 1994, <http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.
[IAOC_SUPP] ICANN/IANA-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement
<http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-
ICANN_Supplemental_Agreement.pdf>
[CORR] Dyson, E., "Correspondence from Esther Dyson, Interim
Chairman, ICANN to Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter and
Fred Baker of the IETF", February 1999,
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 7.2. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bradner-dyson-25feb99.htm>.
[ENUM_INSTR] IAB, "ENUM LIAISON ON IAB INSTRUCTIONS TO RIPE-NCC",
September 2002,
<http://www.iab.org/Documents/sg2-liaison-e164-sep-02.html>.
[RIPE_ENUM] RIPE NCC, "ENUM Registry", September 2002,
<http://www.ripe.net/enum>.
8. Authors' Addresses
Danny McPherson, Editor
Verisign, Inc.
Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com
Geoff Huston, Editor
APNIC
Email: gih@apnic.net
Olaf M. Kolkman, Editor
NLnet Labs
Email: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
9. Appendix A: Considerations on the term IANA
The term "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)" has been used
historically in different contexts. Specifically:
1) "IANA" has commonly referred to the set of protocol, DNS,
and Address registry functions currently operated by ICANN:
It is noted that there is current general use of the term
"IANA" or "IANA function" to refer specifically to the set of
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 9. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
registries currently operated by ICANN funded through a
contract [DoC_IANA] between ICANN and the U.S. Government's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA).
2) Within the IETF context "IANA" has been referred to as the set
of registry operators of the IETF protocol parameters:
At the time of writing this document (February 2011) the
operation of the majority of the protocol parameter registries
are delegated to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN). Not all IETF protocol parameter
registries are delegated to ICANN, and at present the
operation of the 'e164.arpa' registry has been delegated to
the RIPE Network Coordination Center (RIPE NCC) [ENUM_INSTR].
3) Additionally, and also within IETF context, "IANA" has been
referred to as the entire set of IETF protocol parameter
registries:
IETF specifications continue to use the term "IANA
Considerations" when referring to specific functions to be
performed with respect to a protocol parameter registry, as
provided in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. It is noted that the use of
the term 'IANA' in this context does not necessarily imply
the delegation of the parameter registry operation to the
functions operated by ICANN.
In addition to the multiple contexts of the use of the term "IANA",
the structure and association of the U.S. Government's contractual
relationship with ICANN over the performance of a protocol parameter
registry operation that is commonly known as the "IANA" role, is a
source of some common confusion regarding the question as to who
maintains ultimate authority over the protocol parameter registries
themselves. ICANN undertakes these "mechanical" tasks on behalf of
the IETF at the discretion of the IAB, as defined in the Memorandum
of Understanding [RFC2860] between the IETF Administrative Support
Activity (IASA) and ICANN, and in supplements [IAOC_SUPP] provided
thereafter.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 9. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
10. Appendix B: IANA registries in context
10.1. Definition of an IETF Protocol Parameter Registry
Using the term 'IANA' in the sense of the entire set of IETF protocol
parameter registries, the Internet Standards document, STD 2
[RFC1700], published in October 1994, defined the role of the IANA as
follows:
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the central
coordinator for the assignment of unique parameter values for
Internet protocols. The IANA is chartered by the Internet
Society (ISOC) and the Federal Network Council (FNC) to act as
the clearinghouse to assign and coordinate the use of numerous
Internet protocol parameters.
The Internet protocol suite, as defined by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its steering group (the IESG),
contains numerous parameters, such as Internet protocol addresses,
domain names, autonomous system numbers (used in some routing
protocols), protocol numbers, port numbers, management information
base object identifiers, including private enterprise numbers, and
many others.
The common use of the Internet protocols by the Internet
community requires that the particular values used in these
parameter fields be assigned uniquely. It is the task of the
IANA to make those unique assignments as requested and to maintain
a registry of the currently assigned values [RFC1700].
Again using the term 'IANA' in the sense of the entire set of IETF
protocol parameter registries, the definition of the protocol
parameter registry role is provided in "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]:
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 (e.g., 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).
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.1. [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
This text appears to confuse two of the three (1 and 3) contexts
presented in Appendix A with which the "IANA" term is used.
10.2. Publication of Protocol Parameter Registry Assignments
Currently there are two registry operators that publicize protocol
parameter registry assignments: the IANA registry as operated by
ICANN, and the RIPE NCC.
The current mode of publication of protocol parameter registry
assignments undertaken within registries whose operation is currently
delegated to ICANN is described in the Informational Document
"Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line Database"
[RFC3232], published in January 2002:
From November 1977 through October 1994, the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) periodically published
tables of the Internet protocol parameter assignments in
RFCs entitled, "Assigned Numbers". The most current of these
Assigned Numbers RFCs had Standard status and carried the
designation: STD 2. At this time, the latest STD 2 is
RFC 1700.
Since 1994, this sequence of RFCs have been replaced
by an online database accessible through a web page
(currently, www.iana.org). The purpose of the present RFC
is to note this fact and to officially obsolete RFC 1700,
whose status changes to Historic. RFC 1700 is obsolete, and
its values are incomplete and in some cases may be wrong
[RFC3232].
The mode of publication of the e164.arpa protocol parameter registry
operated by the RIPE NCC is documented in the ENUM Registry
[RIPE_ENUM].
10.3. Procedures Related to IETF Protocol Parameter Management
IETF Protocol Parameter registry actions are defined through the
inclusion of an "IANA Considerations" section in IESG-approved RFC
documents [RFC5226]. Within these considerations the IETF defines
the policies through which a registry operator manages assignments
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.3. [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
within the registry. There are also RFCs that specifically address
IETF protocol parameter considerations for particular protocols
[RFC2780][RFC2939] [RFC2978].
10.4. Registries for IETF Protocol Parameters
As documented in the IAB Charter [RFC2850], the role of the IAB
includes responsibility for the IETF Protocol Parameter registration
function (referred to in the charter as 'IANA'). The IAB, acting on
behalf of the IETF, approves the appointment of an organization to
act as a protocol parameter registry operator on behalf of the IETF,
and also approves the terms and conditions of this delegation of this
function.
The technical direction of the IETF Protocol Parameter registry
function is provided by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG) [RFC2850].
10.5. Current IETF Protocol Parameter Assignments
The list of current IETF protocol parameters for which parameter
value assignments are registered within registries whose operation is
currently delegated to ICANN appears on the IANA web site [IANA]. In
addition there is the e164.arpa registry function [RIPE_ENUM].
Those protocol parameter registries that refer to registrations
related to the allocation of public unicast IPv4 addresses, public
unicast IPv6 addresses, public use Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)
and the top level delegations within the Domain Name System, have
associated registration mechanisms that have been delegated to the
IANA function currently operated under the auspices of ICANN
[RFC2860]. In these cases other bodies are responsible for the
development of policies to manage the registrations of allocations
performed as part of this aspect of the registration function.
Registrations that refer to reservations (e.g., IP address blocks for
documentation purposes or ASNs defined for documentation purposes)
and all other use cases within those registries must be performed
under the exclusive direction of the IETF.
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.5. [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2011 February 2011
11. Appendix C: IAB Members
Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was
published were:
Marcelo Bagnulo
Gonzalo Camarillo
Stuart Cheshire
Vijay Gill
Russ Housley
John Klensin
Olaf Kolkman
Gregory Lebovitz
Andrew Malis
Danny McPherson
David Oran
Jon Peterson
Dave Thaler
McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 11. [Page 18]
