The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry
RFC 6075
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(December 2010; No errata)
Updates RFC 2244
Was draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry (individual in app area)
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Dave Cridland | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 6075 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Alexey Melnikov | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
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,Show full document text