INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten
IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Google
September 15, 2006
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 expires in six months.
Abstract
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 in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA).
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs
guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be
assigned, or when modifications to existing values can be made. If
IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space,
the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that
role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in
formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and
provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that
must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 4
2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 5
3. Designated Experts....................................... 5
3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 6
3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7
3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 7
4. Creating A Registry...................................... 9
4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 9
4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 12
4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries.... 13
5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry........... 14
5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 14
5.2. Updating Registrations.............................. 15
5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 15
6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 16
6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 16
6.2. Appeals............................................. 17
6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 17
6.4. After-The-Fact Registrations........................ 17
6.5. Reclaiming Assigned Values.......................... 18
7. Mailing Lists............................................ 18
8. Security Considerations.................................. 19
9. Open Issues.............................................. 19
10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................ 19
10.1. Changes Relative to -00............................ 20
10.2. Changes Relative to -02............................ 20
11. IANA Considerations..................................... 21
12. Acknowledgments......................................... 21
13. Normative References.................................... 21
14. Informative References.................................. 21
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
15. Authors' Addresses...................................... 23
1. Introduction
Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other
well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or
MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has
been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be
assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption
or authentication transform for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such
fields have consistent values and interpretations in different
implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].
In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or
another kind of value. The binding or association of a specific value
with a particular purpose within a name space is called an assigned
number (or assigned value, or sometimes a "code point" or "protocol
constant"). Each assignment of a value in a name space is called a
registration.
In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs
guidelines describing the conditions under which new values should be
assigned, or when (and how) modifications to existing values can be
made. This document provides guidelines to authors on what sort of
text should be added to their documents in order to provide IANA
clear guidelines and reviews issues that should be considered in
formulating an appropriate policy for assigning numbers to name
spaces.
Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some
cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
further assignments can be made independently and with no further
(central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while
subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space
has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]; IANA manages the
subtree rooted at "iso.org.dod.internet" (1.3.6.1) . When a name
space is delegated, the scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the
namespace where IANA has authority.
This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their
negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
"the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
protocol documents within the IETF standards process.
2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary
One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the
space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made
carefully to prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is
essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion will
probably not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is
essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at
least a minimal review prior to assignment in order to:
- prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For
example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
that correspond to desirable names (e.g., existing company names).
- provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for an essentially
equivalent service already exists).
A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name
space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate,
as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments.
A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed
protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
review is often essential to avoid future interoperability problems
[PROTOCOL-EXT].
In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited and there are
no potential interoperability issues; in such cases assigned numbers
can safely be given out to anyone. When no subjective review is
needed, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is
given specific instructions on what types of requests it should
grant, and what information must be provided as part of a well-formed
request for an assigned number.
3. Designated Experts
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts
It should be noted that IANA does not create or define assignment
policy itself; rather, it carries out policies that have been defined
by others, i.e., in RFCs. IANA must be given a set of guidelines
that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity
and without requiring any technical expertise with respect to the
protocols that make use of a registry.
In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate,
and the question becomes who should perform the review and what is
the purpose of the review. In many cases, one might think that an
IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should
be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they
cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for
name spaces to be created through individual submission documents,
for which no WG is ever formed.
One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to
have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such
an action helps ensure that the specification is publicly and
permanently available, and allows some review of the specification
prior to publication and assignment of the requested code points.
This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly
important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For
example, some assignments are not just assignments, but also involve
an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields
that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may
not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base
protocols on which they are built.
In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to
get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful
(and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing
list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for
media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a
current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for
new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned,
or to give advice to persons wanting help in understanding what a
proper registration should contain.
While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical
feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate
in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such
discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated
expert" to advise it in the specific question of whether an
assignment should be made. The designated expert is a single
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
individual who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate
evaluation and returning a recommendation to IANA.
It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated
experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a single-person subject
matter expert to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA
forwards requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and
the expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA whether or
not to make the assignment.
3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert
The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
as wide a review of an assignment request as appropriate to evaluate
it properly. This may involve consultation with a set of technology
experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or consultation with a
working group (or its mailing list if the working group has
disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows specific
review criteria as documented with the protocol that creates or uses
the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of
[RFC3748,RFC3575] for examples that have been done for specific name
spaces).
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions
to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to
be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are
expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures,
or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally-accepted
norms, e.g., those in section 3.3.
Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail.
Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (normally upon
recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically
named at the time a document creating or updating a name space is
approved by the IESG, but as experts originally appointed may later
become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary.
Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be
removed by the IESG.
3.3. Designated Expert Reviews
In the eight years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to
use, experience has led to the following observations:
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
- a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally
within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex
ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for those
needing assignments, such as when products need code points to
ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed under a
firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester and
IANA should have some transparency into the process if an answer
cannot be given quickly.
- if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within
a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or with a
reasonable explanation for a delay (e.g., some requests may be
particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must
raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by
delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take
appropriate actions, such as ensuring that the expert understands
and accepts their responsibilities, or appointing a new expert.
- The designated expert is not required to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a sort
of shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert
must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole.
In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no
specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the
presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless
there is a compelling reason not to. Possible reasons to deny a
request include:
- scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints
should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number
of codepoints is made, when a single codepoint is the norm.
- documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure
interoperability
- the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the
extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally
understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and
would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the
intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a
personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant
differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security
model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message
type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar
result), etc.
- the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
- the extension would conflict with one under active development by
the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster
interoperability.
4. Creating A Registry
Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be
created, an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and
guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions
The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to
date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name
space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and
unambiguous. However, use of these terms is RECOMMENDED where
possible, since their meaning is widely understood.
Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for
IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record
them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
interoperability.
Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have
significance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header
lines in email messages.
Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See
[EXPERIMENTATION] for details.
Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values
provided they have been given control over that part of the
name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the
namespace according to one of the other policies.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers, IP addresses
First Come First Served - Assignments are made to anyone on a
first come, first served bases. There is no substantive
review of the request, other than to ensure that it is
well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment.
However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical
information, such as a a point of contact and a brief
description of what the value would be used for. Additional
information specific to the type of value requested may
also need to be provided, as defined by the name space. For
numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by IANA;
with names, specific text strings can usually be requested.
Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG].
Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
Expert is required. The required documentation and review
criteria to be used by the Designated Expert should be
provided when defining the registry. For example, see
Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748].
Specification required - Values and their meaning must be
documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
available public specification, in sufficient detail so
that interoperability between independent implementations
is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies
usage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public
specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear
to allow interoperable implementations. The intention
behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document
can be reasonably be expected to easily be found long after
RFC publication.
Examples: SCSP [SCSP]
RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an
RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices.
IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA-
CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs
that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored
IETF (or WG) Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is
that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed
by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if
suitable working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the
proposed assignment will not negatively impact
interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
inappropriate or damaging manner.
To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored documents with
an IETF Last Call.
Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent
Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].
Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
RFCs approved by the IESG.
Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG]
IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis.
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a
"common case;" indeed, it has seldom been used in practice
during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is
intended to be available in conjunction with other policies
as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other
allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a
timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG
Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review
processes implied by other policies that could have been
employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would
be appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is
desired and there is strong consensus for making the
assignment (e.g., WG consensus).
The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation
under IESG Approval:
- The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another
path is available that is more appropriate and there is
no compelling reason to bypass normal community review
- before approving a request, the community should be
consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as
much information as is reasonably possible about the
request.
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name
space into multiple categories, with assignments within each category
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
handled differently. For example, many protocols now partition name
spaces into two (or even more) parts, where one range is reserved for
Private or Experimental Use, while other ranges are reserved for
globally unique assignments assigned following some review process.
Dividing a name space into ranges makes it possible to have different
policies in place for different ranges.
4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry
The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered
in formulating a policy for assigning values in name spaces. It is
the Working Group and/or document author's job to formulate an
appropriate policy and specify it in the appropriate document. In
almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Considerations" section is
appropriate. The following subsections define what is needed for the
different types of IANA actions.
Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of
an existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In
particular, instructions MUST include:
1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. The
name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to in
future documents that need to allocate a value from the new
space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should
be provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be
easily confusable with the name of another registry.
2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order
to assign a new value.
3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a
value from the namespace.
Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name
the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name
should be relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the
time the document is sent to the IESG for approval.
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public
mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types),
that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that
when mailing lists are specified, a Designated Expert MUST also
be specified (see Section 3).
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
If IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an
outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the
requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity.
When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is
quite acceptable to pick one (ore more) of the example policies
listed in Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the
preferred mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide
the desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of
considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated
Expert should follow.
For example, a document could say something like:
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space
[RFCXXX]. The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field,
for which IANA is to create and maintain a registry entitled
"FooType values". Initial values for the FooType registry are
given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert
Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments consist of a FooType
name and its associated value.
FooType Name Value Definition
---- ----- ----------
Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1
NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2
For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-LANG, RFC3757,
RFC3749, RFC3575, RFC3968].
4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries
Updating the registration process for an already existing (i.e.,
previously created) name space (whether created explicitly or
implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when creating a
new namespace. That is, a document is produced that makes reference
to the existing namespace and then provides detailed guidelines for
handling assignments in each individual name space. Such documents
are normally processed as BCPs [IETF-PROCESS].
Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then)
pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575].
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry
5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values
Often, documents request an assignment from an already existing name
space (i.e., one created by a previously-published RFC). In such
cases documents should make clear:
- From what name space is a value is being requested? It is helpful
to use the exact name space name as listed on the IANA web page
(and defining RFC), and cite the RFC where the name space is
defined. (Note: There is no need to mention what the assignment
policy for new assignments is, as that should be clear from the
references.)
- For each value being requested, give it a unique reference. When
the value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Through-
out the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be
filled in, use the "TBDx" notation. This helps ensure that the
final RFC has the correct assigned values inserted in in all of
the relevant places where the value is expected to appear in the
final document. For values that are text strings, a specific name
can be suggested. IANA will normally assign the name, unless it
conflicts with a name already in use.
- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (together with the reason for the
choice). For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is
suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be
noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to
assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number
has already been assigned for some other use.
For some registries, IANA has a longstanding policy prohibiting
assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization name
basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless there
is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this docu-
ment is intended to change those policies or prevent their future
application.
- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the
document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is
generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also often
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
useful for this table to be in the format of a registry data as it
should appear on the IANA web site
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
5.2. Updating Registrations
Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, MIME types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself.
Example information can include point of contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In
such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state
who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. In
different cases, it may be appropriate to specify one or more of the
following:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints and review as with new registrations.
- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration.
- Designate the IESG or another entity as having the right to
change the registrant associated with a registration and any
requirements or conditions on doing so. This is mainly to get
around the problem when a registrant cannot be reached in order
to make necessary updates.
5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures
Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the
documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always
adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA
considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are
sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group
documents (for which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points
from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the
documented procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the
cases. In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there
is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but
the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG
is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The
intention is not to overrule properly documented procedures, or to
obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA
Considerations. Instead, the intention is to permit assignments in
individual cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just
be made, but updating the IANA process just to assign a particular
code point is viewed as too heavy a burden.
In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA registration
procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF standards
process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for needed
assignments. If the IESG has had to take the action in this section,
it is a strong indicator that the IANA registration procedures should
be updated, possibly in parallel with ongoing protocol work.
6. Miscellaneous Issues
6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such
documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA Actions.
This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted
after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be
true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without
careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA
actions being performed.
If a specification makes use of values from a name space that is not
managed by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, e.g., with
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
wording such as:
The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo
registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document
has no IANA Actions.
In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered
valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be
considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may
be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made
clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
or
[RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.]
6.2. Appeals
Appeals on registration decisions made by IANA can be appealed using
the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of
[IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG,
followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB, etc.
6.3. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evaluation
policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide
what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always
be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to
register or otherwise manage name space assignments MUST provide
guidelines for managing the name space.
6.4. After-The-Fact Registrations
Occasionally, IANA becomes aware that an unassigned value from a
managed name space is in use on the Internet, or that an assigned
value is being used for a different purpose than originally
registered. IANA will not condone such misuse, i.e., procedures of
the type described in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In
the absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original
assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of
such a reassignment.
6.5. Reclaiming Assigned Values
Reclaiming previously-assigned values for reuse is tricky, because
doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems
still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely
difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use
of a particular value. However, in cases where the name space is
running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it
may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When reclaiming
unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be considered:
- attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a
value is assigned, to determine how widely used a value is. (In
some cases, products were never shipped or have long ceased being
used. In other cases, it may be known that a value was never
actually used at all.)
- reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence
of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions
should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value
is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs
the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG approval is
needed in this case.
- it may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit
comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF
process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed
some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942]
7. Mailing Lists
All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing
assignment requests as described in this document are subject to
whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are
currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
8. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to
instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept
clarifications from document authors and relevant WG chairs.
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities
related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a
protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered,
information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to
existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true
security issues surrounding the use of a registered number.
An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
registered by IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be as
accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In
particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated
with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to
state that "the security issues associated with this type have not
been assessed".
9. Open Issues
- the security considerations section seems out of whack with
reality and existing practice. Which registries actually talk
about security implications? Is this a common thing to do? Should
security issues be discussed in published RFCs instead?
- Added text to "Specification Required" stating that an Expert will
be used to evaluate a spec for adequate "implementability". Is
this reasonable? [IANA can't do the evaluation, as they lack the
necessary time/expertise. So someone has to do it...] Note:
Consensus seems to be yes.
- It would be good to get additional feedback on whether the
examples of "good IANA Considerations" that are cited are actually
good, or whether better ones are available.
10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434
Changes include:
- Major reordering of text to group the "creation of registries"
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
text in same section, etc.
- Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.
- Change "IETF Consensus" term to "IETF Review" and added more
clarifications. (History has shown that people see the words "IETF
Consensus" and know what that means; in contrast, the term has a
specific definition within this document.)
- Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.
- Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in
RFCs".
- "Specification Required" now implies use of Designated Expert to
evaluate specs for sufficient clarity.
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is to
make clear that Expert Reviewers are accountable to the community,
and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the default
case.
- removed wording: "By virtue of the IAB's role as overseer of IANA
administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final [IETF-
PROCESS]." This document now makes no changes to existing appeal
mechanisms relative to RFC 2026.
- Added section about reclaiming unused value.
- Added a section on after-the-fact registrations.
- no doubt other things...
[RFC Editor: please remove the "changes relative to individual
drafts" below upon publication.]
10.1. Changes Relative to -00
- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.
10.2. Changes Relative to -02
- Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is
to make clear the Expert Reviewers are accountable to the
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
community, and to provide some guidance for review criteria in
the default case.
- removed wording: "By virtue of the IAB's role as overseer of
IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final
[IETF-PROCESS]." This document now makes no changes to existing
appeal mechanisms relative to RFC 2026.
11. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA Considerations.
12. Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from specific feedback from Marcelo
Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Barbara Denny, Spencer Dawkins, Paul
Hoffman, John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Mark Townsley and Bert Wijnen.
The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was:
Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently
provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian
Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the
document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
borrowed from [MIME-REG].
13. Normative References
14. Informative References
[ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994. See also:
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283,
February 1998.
[DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
[EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January
2004.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work
of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B.
Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June
2000.
[IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 1825, August 1995.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.
[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache
Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April
1998.
[SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869,
November 1995.
[PROTOCOL-EXT] "Procedures for protocol extensions and variations",
draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt
[RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake
3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September
2000.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
[RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002.
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003.
[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed., RFC 3748, June, 2004.
[RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005.
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. July 2003.
[RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). B. Aboba, L.
Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz,
Ed.. June 2004.
[RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H.
Alvestrand. October 2004.
[RFC3942] "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version
4 (DHCPv4) Options", B. Volz. RFC 3942, November
2004
[RFC3968] "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field
Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)," G. Camarillo. RFC 3968, December
2004.
15. Authors' Addresses
Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
Phone: 919-254-7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Google
Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 15, 2006
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt [Page 25]
