The IAB responds to ITU Consultation on Resolution 102, 21 May 2007
|The IAB responds to ITU Consultation on Resolution 102, 21 May 2007
|Metadata last updated
|Send notices to
From: “Olaf M. Kolkman” <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: 21 May 2007 4:34:27 PM GMT+02:00
Subject: Response on “Consultation on Resolution 102”
In response to your “Consultation on Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2005)”, a letter with reference DM-07/1008 d.d. 29 March 2007, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) would like to note the following with respect to the role of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in the management of Internet domain names, addresses, and other Internet resources.
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better [RFC3935]. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. The Internet Standards Process is concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The IETF assumes responsibility for the maintenance and extension of IPv4, IPv6, TCP, BGP, ENUM, DNS, IDNA, and multiple others.
In the case of protocols developed and/or standardized by other organizations, the Internet Standards Process is applicable to any extensions or updates to IETF-maintained specifications and parameters. Under guidance of the IAB the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) maintains a registry of technical protocol parameters.
For IETF specifications requiring registered parameters, the IETF specifies the creation and allocation policies for parameters in a registry. These policies document the appropriate method of allocation. This may require standards action by the IETF or review by IETF designated experts. IANA takes responsibility for the implementation of parameter registration policies in a coordinated fashion. The mutual responsibilities of the IETF and IANA are described in an MOU in an MOU between the IETF and ICANN, which operates the IANA function [RFC2860].
In addition to its responsibility of the maintenance of the Technical Parameters, IANA is responsible for the maintenance of Domain names and IP addresses. IANA does so under policies that are developed by the appropriate stake holders, where we note that the overall IP allocation schemes are set by the IETF [RFC4291, RFC2050, RFC1918].
Concluding, we wish to inform you that the IETF, as the SDO responsible for Internet routing and addressing architecture and specifications, has had many of the topics covered in the questionnaire under study since its inception. The IETF process is open to all concerned parties, and we believe the mechanisms and processes for ITU-T (and ITU members) to be involved in decisions pertaining to policies for allocation of Internet resources are established and well defined.
The IAB encourages the ITU to provide leadership to its members and encourage them to participate in and liaise with the organizations in the existing framework of standards and policy development.
Olaf Kolkman, IAB Chair, on behalf of the IAB.
Russ Housley, IETF chair.
IETF. The Internet Engineering Task Force is a worldwide and open organziation whose mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. See http://www.ietf.org/.
IAB. The Internet Architecture Board has a long history but is currently viewed as the senior committee working with the IETF that has both technical (architectural) functions and oversight functions for the development of the Internet. The latter also include oversight of the IANA functions performed for the IETF. See
[RFC1518] “An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR”, Y. Rekhter and T. Li, 1993,
[RFC1918] “Address Allocation for Private Internets”, Y. Rekhter et al, 1996,
[RFC2050] “INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES” K. Hubbard et al, 1996,
[RFC2860] “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority”, B. Carpenter et al, 2000,
[RFC4291] “IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture, Hinden and Deering, 2006,
[RFC3935] “A Mission Statement for the IETF”, H. Alvestrand, 2004,