Network Working Group W. M. Townsley Internet-Draft cisco Systems <draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-00.txt> April 2002 L2TP IANA Considerations Update Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes updates to the IANA considerations for the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol. Townsley Standards Track [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update April 2002 Contents Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 1. Introduction............................................. 2 2. IANA Considerations...................................... 2 3. Normative References..................................... 4 4. Security Considerations.................................. 4 5. Acknowledgements......................................... 4 6. Author's Address......................................... 4 1. Introduction This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in [RFC2661], in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. 1.1. Specification of Requirements In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the specification. These words are often capitalized. 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]. 1.2. Terminology The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration". The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review", "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action". 2. IANA Considerations L2TP [RFC2661] defines a number of "magic" numbers to be maintained by the IANA. This section updates the criteria to be used by the IANA to assign additional numbers in each of these lists. Each of the values identified in this document which require a registration criteria update are currently maintained by IANA and Townsley Standards Track [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update April 2002 have a range of values from 0 to 65 535, of which a very small number have been allocated (the maximum number allocated within any one range is 46) [IANA-L2TP]. Given the nature of these values, it is not expected that any will ever run into a resource allocation problem if registration allocation requirements are relaxed from their current state. The recommended criteria changes for IANA registration is listed in the following sections. In one case, the registration criteria is currently defined as First Come First Served and should be made more strict, others are defined as IETF Consensus and need to be relaxed. The relaxation from IETF Consensus is motivated by specific cases where values that were never intended to be vendor-specific have had to enter early field trials or be released in generally available products with vendor-specific values while awaiting documents to be formalized. In most cases this results in products that have to support both the vendor-specific value and IETF value indefinitely. For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the Designated Expert. For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the l2tpext mailing list should be consulted. The basic guideline for the Expert Review process will be to approve assignment of a value only if there is a document being advanced which clearly defines the values to be assigned, and there is active implementation development (perhaps entering early field or interoperability trails, requiring assigned values to proceed without having to resort to a chosen vendor-specific method). 2.1. Control Message AVPs IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs" [IANAL2TP], of which 0 - 46 have been assigned. The criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should be assigned upon Expert Review. 2.2. Message Type AVP Values IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Message Type AVP (Attribute Type 0) Values" [IANA-L2TP], of which 0 - 16 have been assigned. The criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should be assigned upon Expert Review. 2.3. Result Code AVP Values Townsley Standards Track [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update April 2002 IANA maintains a list of "Result Code values for the StopCCN message," "Result Code values for the CDN message," and "General Error Codes" [IANAL2TP]. The criteria for Error Code assignment was originally First Come First Served, and the criteria for CDN and StopCCN Result Codes was originally IETF Consensus. Further values for all Result and Error codes should be assigned upon Expert Review. 2.4. Remaining Values All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned specifically in this document remain as is. 3. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2661] Townsley W., et al., "Layer Two Tunneling Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661, August 1999. [L2TPIANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661", http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters 4. Security Considerations This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security considerations. 5. Acknowledgements Some of this text and much of the format of this document was taken from an Internet draft on EAP IANA Considerations authored by Bernard Aboba. 6. Author's Address W. Mark Townsley cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road PO Box 14987 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 mark@townsley.net Townsley Standards Track [Page 4]
