The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry
RFC 6075

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 02

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       D. Cridland
Request for Comments: 6075                                 Isode Limited
Updates: 2244                                              December 2010
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721

The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configuration
            Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry

Abstract

   The original Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)
   specification included a vendor registry now used in other protocols.
   This document updates the description of this registry, removing the
   need for a direct normative reference to ACAP and removing ambiguity.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6075.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Cridland                     Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 6075              ACAP Vendor Subtrees Registry        December 2010

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  The Vendor Subtree Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Internationalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.4.  Changes from RFC 2244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.1.  Example Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.  Introduction

   The [ACAP] specification includes the specification and creation of
   the ACAP Vendor Registry, and this registry has subsequently been
   reused by several specifications, including both [ANNOTATE] and
   [METADATA], and is proving to be a useful mechanism for namespacing
   various names to within a specific vendor's scope.

   The use of textual rather than numeric identifiers for vendors
   benefits engineers and operators who are diagnosing protocol problems
   by allowing them some possibility of identifying the origin of a
   vendor attribute without having to look it up in a registry (although
   that remains a necessary fallback).  As such, engineers and operators
   already have to be familiar with international technical English to
   diagnose textual protocol problems, the restriction to ASCII may help
   and is not believed to harm that intended use.  Exposure of vendor
   attributes directly in end-user user interfaces was not an intended
   use of the registry.

   This document merely updates the registry to reduce ambiguity in the
   original specification and dissociates it from the original document
   in all but name, allowing easier referencing.  It replaces Section
   7.4 and portions of Section 4, particularly Section 4.3, of [ACAP].

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

Cridland                     Standards Track                    [Page 2]
RFC 6075              ACAP Vendor Subtrees Registry        December 2010

   The formal syntax is to be considered normative and is specified
   using [ABNF].  Where a formal syntax and the prose are in conflict,