Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
RFC 6254

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       M. McFadden
Request for Comments: 6254                                         ICANN
Obsoletes: 2754                                                 May 2011
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721

              Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status

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 document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   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).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see 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/rfc6254.

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

McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6254               RFC 2754 to Historic Status              May 2011

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Details .........................................................2
   3. Terminology .....................................................3
   4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
   5. Security Considerations .........................................3
   6. Acknowledgments .................................................3
   7. Informative Reference ...........................................3

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
   charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols that
   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 Specification 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 not to 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 and
   infrastructure now exist for secure routing using Resource Public Key
   Infrastructure (RPKI) technologies.  As an example, the semantics of
   a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) -- an application of the RPKI --
   to validate the origination of routes has been standardized by
   the IETF.

McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 6254               RFC 2754 to Historic Status              May 2011

   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.

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 Hoenes, Russ Housley, Leo
   Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu, Michelle Cotton,
   and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments.

7.  Informative Reference

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

Author's Address

   Mark McFadden
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   United States
   Phone: +1-608-628-2674
   EMail: mark.mcfadden@icann.org
   URI:   http://www.iana.org

McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 3]