Network Working Group                                        M. McFadden
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Obsoletes: 2754 (if approved)                              March 8, 2011
Intended status: Informational
Expires: September 9, 2011


              Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
                   draft-iana-rfc2754-to-historic-02

Abstract

   RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it
   was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally
   sign them.  The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in
   software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System.
   In practice, this was never done on the public Internet.  This
   document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to historic status.

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 9, 2011.

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



McFadden                Expires September 9, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         RFC 2754 to Historic Status            March 2011


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5



































McFadden                Expires September 9, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         RFC 2754 to Historic Status            March 2011


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
   charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols
   which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF).  RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the
   IANA create a repository of Routing Policy System Language (RPSL)
   objects and digitally sign them.  The RFC identifies the initial
   objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
   address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
   as well.  In practice, this was never done in the public Internet.
   During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration activities
   in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was identified
   as one of those that had not been completed after publication of the
   RFC.

   This document obsoletes RFC 2754 [RFC2754], recommends that it be
   moved to historic status, and directs IANA to not move forward with
   the IANA Actions in that RFC.


2.  Details

   RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the IANA create a repository of RPSL
   objects and digitally sign them.  The RFC identifies the initial
   objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
   address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
   as well.

   During a review of RFCs in 2009 it became apparent that the IANA
   actions requested in RFC 2754 were never done.  In the intervening
   time, another technology appears to be taking the role once
   envisioned for Distributed RPSL.  Both an architecture
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch] and infrasturucture now exist for secure
   rounting using Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
   technologies.  As an example, the semantics of a Route Origin
   Authorization (ROA) - an application of the RPKI
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-validation] - to validate the origination of
   routes has been standardized by the IETF.

   Implementation of the IANA actions in RFC 2754 would now require
   significant implementation complexity.  In the face of alternative
   technology, and given that the requested actions have not been
   implemented in the public Internet, it is proposed to reclassify RFC
   2754 [RFC2754] as historic and to direct the IANA not to pursue or
   implement the IANA requests in that document.





McFadden                Expires September 9, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         RFC 2754 to Historic Status            March 2011


3.  Terminology

   The word "allocation" designates a block of addresses managed by a
   registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations.  The
   word "assignment" designates a block of addresses, or a single
   address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or
   set of networks.


4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the IANA actions
   requested in RFC 2754.  [RFC2754]


5.  Security Considerations

   The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took
   place in the public Internet.  Moving RFC 2754 [RFC2754] to historic
   status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet.


6.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Alfred Hines, Russ Housley, Leo
   Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu, Michelle Cotton
   and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
              Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-12 (work in
              progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-validation]
              Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route
              Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and ROAs",
              draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10 (work in progress),
              November 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2754]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, "RPS
              IANA Issues", RFC 2754, January 2000.



McFadden                Expires September 9, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         RFC 2754 to Historic Status            March 2011


Author's Address

   Mark McFadden
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey  90292
   United States

   Phone: +1-608-628-2674
   Email: mark.mcfadden@icann.org
   URI:   http://www.iana.org








































McFadden                Expires September 9, 2011               [Page 5]