idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits19353/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 3) being 60 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 10, 2014) is 2748 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2132' is mentioned on line 371, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'BCP26' is mentioned on line 573, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC9876' is mentioned on line 1365, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4288 (Obsoleted by RFC 6838) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4395 (Obsoleted by RFC 7595) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6195 (Obsoleted by RFC 6895) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Cotton 3 Internet-Draft ICANN 4 BCP: 26 B. Leiba 5 Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies 6 Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten 7 Expires: May 12, 2015 IBM Corporation 8 November 10, 2014 10 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs 11 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-10 13 Abstract 15 Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants 16 to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values 17 used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote 18 interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central 19 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet 20 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 22 To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs 23 guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be 24 assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values 25 can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation 26 of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that 27 the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues 28 that are likely in the operation of a registry. 30 This is the third edition, and obsoletes RFC 5226. 32 Status of this Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2015. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ 56 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 57 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 58 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 59 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 60 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 61 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 1.2. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 1.3. Terminology Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 6 72 2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy . . . . . . . . . 8 73 2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . 10 74 2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . 11 75 2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . 12 76 2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . . 13 78 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . . 13 79 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 4. Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 84 4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 86 4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 87 4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 88 4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 89 4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 94 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 21 95 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 23 97 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 98 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 25 99 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 26 100 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 26 101 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 102 9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 103 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 104 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . . 29 105 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 106 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 107 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 30 108 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 109 10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 110 11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 111 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 112 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 113 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . . 31 114 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 32 115 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 32 116 15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 117 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) . . . . . . . . 33 118 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) . . . . . 34 119 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) . . . . . . 34 120 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 121 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 122 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 123 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 125 1. Introduction 127 Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants 128 to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values 129 used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote 130 interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central 131 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet 132 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860]. IANA services are 133 currently provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 134 Numbers (ICANN). 136 The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and MIME media types 137 [RFC4288] are two examples of such coordinations. 139 In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a 140 field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value 141 with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment 142 (or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point, 143 protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is 144 called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a 145 registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used 146 interchangably throughout this document. 148 To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, IANA needs 149 guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be 150 assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values 151 can be made. This document defines a framework for the documentation 152 of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that 153 the guidance given to IANA is clear and addresses the various issues 154 that are likely in the operation of a registry. 156 Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the 157 specification with the title "IANA Considerations". 159 1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA 161 The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to 162 provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and 163 instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in 164 other parts of the document, and should be included by reference 165 only. Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical 166 documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document 167 and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take. 169 If, for example, the registration of an item in a registry includes a 170 short description of the item being registered, that should be placed 171 in the IANA Considerations directly. But if it's necessary to 172 include a longer technical explanation of the purpose and use of the 173 item, the IANA Considerations should refer to a technical section of 174 the document where that information resides. Similarly, if the 175 document is pointing out the use of an existing assignment in a 176 registry, but makes no modification to the registration, that should 177 be in a technical section of the document, reserving the IANA 178 Considerations section for instructions to IANA. 180 An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies 181 each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such 182 as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear 183 references to elsewhere in the document for other information. 185 1.2. For More Information 187 IANA maintains a web page that includes current important information 188 from IANA. Document authors should check that page for additional 189 information, beyond what is provided here. 191 . 193 1.3. Terminology Used In This Document 195 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 196 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 197 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 198 For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to 199 the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards 200 process. 202 2. Creating and Revising Registries 204 Defining a registry involves describing the namespace(s) to be 205 created, listing an initial set of assignments (if appropriate), and 206 documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. 208 Before defining a registry, however, consider delegating the 209 namespace in some manner. This route should be pursued when 210 appropriate, as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with 211 assignments. 213 In particular, not all namespaces require a registry; in some cases, 214 assignments can be made independently and with no further (central) 215 coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, IANA only 216 deals with assignments at the higher levels, while subdomains are 217 administered by the organization to which the space has been 218 delegated. When a namespace is delegated in this manner, the scope 219 of IANA is limited to the parts of the namespace where IANA has 220 authority. 222 2.1. Hierarchical Registry Structure 224 It's important to start with a word on the IANA registry structure. 225 All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page: 227 . 229 That page lists registries in protocol category groups, like this: 231 --------------------------------------------------------------- 232 Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) Parameters 234 ADSP Outbound Signing Practices RFC 5617 235 IETF Review 237 ADSP Specification Tags RFC 5617 238 IETF Review 240 Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail Parameters 242 Auto-Submitted Header Field RFC 5436 243 Keywords Specification Required 245 Auto-Submitted header field RFC 3834 246 optional parameters IETF Consensus 248 Autonomous System (AS) Numbers 250 16-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6996 251 RIR request to the IANA 252 or IETF Review 254 32-bit Autonomous System Numbers RFC 1930, RFC 5398, RFC 6793, 255 RFC 6996 256 RIR request to the IANA 257 or IETF Review 258 --------------------------------------------------------------- 260 The grouping allows related registries to be placed together, making 261 it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary 262 information. In the example section above, there are two registries 263 related to the ADSP protocol, and they are both placed in the "ADSP 264 Parameters" group. 266 Within the "ADSP Parameters" group are two registries: "ADSP Outbound 267 Signing Practices" and "ADSP Specification Tags". Clicking on the 268 title of one of these registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page 269 will take the reader to the details page for that registry. Often, 270 multiple registries are shown on the same details page. 272 Unfortunately, we have been inconsistent in how we refer to these 273 entities. The group names, as they are referred to here, have been 274 variously called "protocol category groups", "groups", "top-level 275 registries", or just "registries". The registries under them have 276 been called "registries" or "sub-registries". And when new 277 registries are created, the documents that define them often don't 278 specify the grouping at all, but only name the new registry. This 279 results in questions from IANA and delays in processing, or, worse, 280 in related registries that should have been grouped together, but 281 that are instead scattered about and hard to find and correlate. 283 Regardless of the terminology used, document authors should pay 284 attention to the registry groupings, should request that related 285 registries be grouped together, and, when creating a new registry, 286 should check whether that registry might best be included in an 287 existing group. That grouping information should be clearly 288 communicated to IANA in the registry creation request. 290 2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries 292 Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an 293 existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining 294 that space (serving as a repository for registered values) MUST 295 provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the 296 IANA Considerations section, or referenced from it. 298 In particular, such instructions MUST include: 300 The name of the registry (or sub-registry) 301 This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to 302 in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new 303 space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be 304 provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be 305 easily confused with the name of another registry. 307 When creating a sub-registry, the registry that it is a part of 308 MUST be identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in 309 the IANA registry list. 311 Providing a URL to precisely identify the registry helps IANA 312 understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from the RFC 313 prior to final publication. If they are to be left in, it is 314 important that they be permanent links. IANA intends to include 315 the permalink for each registry in the registry header. Until 316 that is done, IANA can answer questions about the correct URLs to 317 use. 319 For example, a document could contain something like this: 321 This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational 322 Parameters registry, located at . 325 It might be tempting to use the URL that appears in your web 326 browser's address bar, which might look something like this for 327 the example above: 329 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry/foobar- 330 registry.xml 332 ...but that is not the permanent link to the registry. 334 Required information for registrations 336 This information may include the need to document relevant 337 Security Considerations, if any. 339 Applicable review process 341 The review process that will apply to all future requests for 342 registration. See Section 2.3. 344 Size, format and syntax of registry entries 346 What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements 347 on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations 348 on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry 349 values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should 350 specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in 351 hexadecimal, or in some other format. For strings, the encoding 352 format should be specified (ASCII, UTF8, etc.). 354 Initial assignments and reservations 356 Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In 357 addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use", 358 "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be 359 indicated. 361 For example, a document might specify a new registry by including: 363 --------------------------------------------------------------- 365 X. IANA Considerations 367 This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see 368 Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space 369 [to be removed upon publication: 370 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters] 371 [RFC2132] [RFC2939]: 372 Data 373 Tag Name Length Meaning 374 ---- ---- ------ ------- 375 TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server 377 The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which 378 IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled 379 "FooType values" under the FooBar option. Initial values for the 380 DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments 381 are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26]. 382 Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its 383 associated value. 385 Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition 386 ---- ------------------------ ---------- 387 0 Reserved 388 1 Frobnitz See Section y.1 389 2 NitzFrob See Section y.2 390 3-254 Unassigned 391 255 Reserved 392 --------------------------------------------------------------- 394 For examples of documents that establish registries, consult 395 [RFC3575], [RFC3968], and [RFC4520]. 397 2.3. Defining an Appropriate Registry Policy 399 There are several issues to consider when defining the policy for the 400 new assignments in a registry. 402 If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be 403 made carefully to prevent exhaustion. 405 Even when the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually 406 desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in 407 order to: 409 o prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For 410 example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be 411 desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings 412 that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for 413 example). 415 o provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and 416 is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal 417 review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent 418 assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not 419 actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an 420 essentially equivalent service already exists). 422 Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact 423 interoperability and security. See [RFC6709]. 425 When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no 426 potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can 427 usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In 428 such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is 429 given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should 430 grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective 431 judgement. 433 When this is not the case, some level of review is required. 434 However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of 435 registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be 436 IETF participants; requests often come from other standards 437 organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards, 438 from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for 439 example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily 440 difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other 441 resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial. 443 While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered 444 (e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for 445 which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in 446 many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more 447 important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time 448 and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a 449 registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements 450 actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on 451 the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued. 453 In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such 454 as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will 455 come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the 456 working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a 457 new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a 458 Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, the 459 experience can serve to motivate changing to a lower bar for 460 registration. 462 Indeed, publishing any RFC is costly, and a Standards Track RFC is 463 especially so, requiring a great deal of community time for review 464 and discussion, IETF-wide last call, involvement of the entire IESG 465 as well as concentrated time and review from the sponsoring AD, 466 review and action by IANA, and RFC-Editor processing. 468 Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use 469 care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their 470 documents create registries. They should select the least strict 471 policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific 472 justification for policies that require significant community 473 involvement (those stricter than Specification Required, in terms of 474 the well-known policies). 476 2.3.1. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies 478 This document defines a number of registration policies in Section 4. 479 Because they benefit from both community experience and wide 480 understanding, their use is encouraged when appropriate. 482 It is also acceptable to cite one of the well-known policies and 483 include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should 484 be taken into account by the review process. 486 For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated 487 Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated 488 Expert should follow. 490 The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards 491 Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness 492 (using the numbering from the full list in Section 4): 494 4. First Come First Served 495 No review, minimal documentation. 497 5. Expert Review 498 Expert review with sufficient documentation for review. 500 6. Specification Required 501 Expert review with significant, stable public documentation. 503 7. RFC Required 504 Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream. 506 8. IETF Review 507 RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards 508 Track. 510 9. Standards Action 511 RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track only. 513 Examples of situations that might merit RFC Required, IETF Review, or 514 Standards Action include the following: 516 o When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two 517 bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases, 518 allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and 519 agreed by community consensus could too quickly deplete the 520 allowable values. 522 o When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or 523 modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One 524 example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options 525 that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict 526 policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the 527 latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that 528 change the semantics of existing operations. 530 The description in Section 4.10 of "IESG Approval" suggests that the 531 IESG "can (and should) reject a request if another path for 532 registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no 533 compelling reason not to use that path." The IESG should give 534 similar consideration to any registration policy more stringent than 535 Specification Required, asking for justification and ensuring that 536 more relaxed policies have been considered, and the strict policy is 537 the right one. 539 Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document 540 their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in 541 the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup). 542 Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected 543 policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG. 545 When specifications are revised, registration policies should be 546 reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set. 548 Note that the well-known policies are not exclusive; there are 549 situations where a different policy might be more appropriate. 551 2.3.2. Using Multiple Policies in Combination 553 In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration 554 policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process 555 might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process 556 would have a different policy applied. 558 Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy such as "RFC 559 Required" or "IETF Review" sometimes, with a designated expert 560 checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times. 562 The alternative to using a combination requires either that all 563 requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review 564 by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review 565 and consensus. 567 This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the 568 registry is created: 570 IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" as a 571 sub-registry of "Fruit Parameters". New registrations will be 572 permitted through either the IETF Review policy or the 573 Specification Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used 574 for registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. 576 Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF 577 Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification 578 Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when 579 each policy is appropriate, as in the example above. 581 2.3.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry 583 Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need 584 to be changed after they are created. The process of making such 585 changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make 586 the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream, 587 change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via 588 the IESG. The same is true for value registrations made in IETF- 589 stream RFCs. 591 Because registries can be created and registrations can be made 592 outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desired to have change 593 control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change 594 control policies is always helpful. 596 It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created 597 clearly specify a change control policy and a change controller. It 598 is also advised that registries that allow registrations from outside 599 the IETF stream include, for each value, the designation of a change 600 controller for that value. If the definition or reference for a 601 registered value ever needs to change, or if a registered value needs 602 to be deprecated, it is critical that IANA know who is authorized to 603 make the change. See also Section 9.5. 605 2.4. Revising Existing Registries 607 Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of 608 an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created 609 explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when 610 creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes 611 reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed 612 guidance for handling assignments in the registry, or detailed 613 instructions about the changes required. 615 If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions 616 need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing 617 entries. Other changes may require similar clarity. Remember to 618 check this, and give clear instructions to IANA. 620 Such documents are normally processed with the same document status 621 as the document that created the registry, or as Best Current 622 Practices (BCPs) [RFC2026]. 624 Example documents that updated the guidelines for assignments in pre- 625 existing registries include: [RFC6195], [RFC3228], and [RFC3575]. 627 3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry 629 3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations 631 Often, documents request an assignment in an existing namespace (one 632 created by a previously published document). 634 Such documents should clearly identify the namespace into which each 635 value is to be registered. If the registration goes into a sub- 636 registry, the author should clearly explain that. Use the exact 637 namespace name as listed on the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where 638 the namespace is defined. 640 There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making 641 new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from 642 the references. 644 When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely 645 identify the registry is helpful. See Section 2.2 for details on 646 specifying the correct URL. 648 For example, a document could contain something like this: 650 This registration should be made in the Foobar Operational 651 Parameters registry, located at . 654 Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the 655 document is approved, and drafts should not specify final values. 656 Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used 657 consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be 658 registered a different placeholder. The IANA Considerations should 659 ask the RFC Editor to replace the placeholder names with the IANA- 660 assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for 661 testing or early implementations, they will either request early 662 allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set 663 aside for testing or experimentation. It is important that drafts 664 not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those values to 665 another document in the meantime. A draft can request a specific 666 value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will accommodate 667 such requests when that's possible, but the proposed number might 668 have been assigned to some other use by the time the draft is 669 approved. 671 Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the 672 document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will 673 consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a 674 different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string 675 values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the 676 expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value 677 instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows 678 the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing 679 the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the 680 final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version 681 of the draft, for example. 683 For some registries, IANA has a long-standing policy prohibiting 684 assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis. 685 For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there 686 is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document 687 is intended to change those policies or prevent their future 688 application. 690 The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA 691 actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the 692 document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is 693 generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also helpful for 694 this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear on 695 the IANA web site. For example: 697 Value Description Reference 698 -------- ------------------- --------- 699 TBD1 Foobar [[this RFC]] 701 Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table is 702 too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table in 703 the draft, but may include a note asking that the table be removed 704 prior to publication of the final RFC. 706 As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment 707 of a DHCPv6 option number: 709 IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS 710 Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to 711 the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space 712 defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315. 714 3.2. Updating Existing Registrations 716 Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations 717 contain additional information that may need to be updated over time. 719 For example, MIME media types, character sets, and language tags 720 typically include more information than just the registered value 721 itself, and may need updates to items such as point-of-contact 722 information, security issues, pointers to updates, and literature 723 references. 725 In such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state 726 who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. 727 Depending on the registry, it may be appropriate to specify one or 728 more of: 730 o Letting registrants and/or nominated change controllers update 731 their own registrations, subject to the same constraints and 732 review as with new registrations. 734 o Allowing attachment of comments to the registration. This can be 735 useful in cases where others have significant objections to a 736 registration, but the author does not agree to change the 737 registration. 739 o Designating the IESG, a designated expert, or another entity as 740 having the right to change the registrant associated with a 741 registration and any requirements or conditions on doing so. This 742 is mainly to get around the problem when a registrant cannot be 743 reached in order to make necessary updates. 745 3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 747 Experience has shown that the documented IANA considerations for 748 individual protocols do not always adequately cover the reality of 749 registry operation, or are not sufficiently clear. In addition, 750 documented IANA considerations are sometimes found to be too 751 stringent to allow even working group documents (for which there is 752 strong consensus) to perform a registration in advance of actual RFC 753 publication. 755 In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted 756 authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments 757 on a case-by-case basis. 759 The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures, 760 or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA 761 considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific 762 cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, 763 but updating the IANA process beforehand is too onerous. 765 When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a 766 strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should 767 be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it. 769 IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or 770 intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where 771 policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter 772 issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration 773 requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive. 775 3.4. Early Allocations 777 IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for 778 publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a 779 value is important for the development of a technology: for example, 780 when early implementations are created while the document is still 781 under development. 783 IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some 784 cases. See [RFC7120] for details. 786 4. Well-Known Registration Policies 788 The following are some defined policies, most of which are in use 789 today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used 790 to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a namespace. 791 It is not strictly required that documents use these terms; the 792 actual requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and 793 unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly RECOMMENDED, 794 because their meanings are widely understood. The terms are fully 795 explained in the following subsections. 797 1. Private Use 798 2. Experimental Use 799 3. Hierarchical Allocation 800 4. First Come First Served 801 5. Expert Review 802 6. Specification Required 803 7. RFC Required 804 8. IETF Review 805 9. Standards Action 806 10. IESG Approval 808 It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a namespace 809 into multiple categories, with assignments within each category 810 handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into 811 two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or 812 Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique 813 assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a 814 namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in 815 place for different ranges and different use cases. 817 Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in 818 parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances. 819 For more discussion of that topic, see Section 2.3.2. 821 Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel: 823 LDAP [RFC4520] 824 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in 825 the subsections below) 826 Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) [RFC4446] 828 4.1. Private Use 830 For private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by 831 the local site. No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from 832 using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. There is 833 no need for IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not 834 record them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad 835 interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use 836 of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within 837 the intended scope of use). 839 Examples: 841 Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939] 842 Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044] 843 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246] 845 4.2. Experimental Use 847 Experimental Use is similar to Private Use only, but with the purpose 848 being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details. 850 Example: 852 Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP 853 Headers [RFC4727] 855 4.3. Hierarchical Allocation 857 With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given 858 control over part of the namespace, and can assign values in that 859 part of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels 860 of the namespace according to one of the other policies. 862 Examples: 864 DNS names 865 Object Identifiers 866 IP addresses 868 4.4. First Come First Served 870 For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to 871 anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive 872 review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed 873 and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must 874 include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of 875 contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address) 876 and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional 877 information specific to the type of value requested may also need to 878 be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, the exact 879 value is generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text 880 strings can usually be requested. 882 When creating a new registry with First Come First Served as the 883 registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or 884 reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller. 885 Having a change controller for each entry for these types of 886 registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear. 887 See Section 2.3.3. It is important that changes to the registration 888 of a First Come First Served code point retain compatibility with the 889 current usage of that code point, and so changes need to be made with 890 care. 892 It is also important to understand that First Come First Served 893 really has no filtering. Essentially, any request is accepted. A 894 working group or any other entity that is developing protocol based 895 on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely careful 896 that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use of the 897 code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs to 898 change to a different code point (and register that use at the 899 appropriate time). 901 Examples: 903 SASL mechanism names [RFC4422] 904 LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520] 906 4.5. Expert Review 908 (Also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of this 909 document.) For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a 910 designated expert (see Section 5) is required. The required 911 documentation and review criteria for use by the designated expert 912 should be provided when defining the registry. For example, see 913 Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748]. 915 It is particularly important, when using a designated expert, to give 916 clear guidance to the expert, laying out criteria for performing an 917 evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. When specifying a 918 policy that involves a designated expert, the IANA Considerations 919 SHOULD contain such guidance. It is also a good idea to include, 920 when possible, a sense of whether many registrations are expected 921 over time, or if the registry is expected to be updated infrequently 922 or in exceptional circumstances only. 924 When creating a new registry with Expert Review as the registration 925 policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the 926 registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a 927 change controller for each entry for these types of registrations 928 makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section 929 2.3.3 931 Examples: 933 EAP Method Types [RFC3748] 934 HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169] 935 URI schemes [RFC4395] 936 GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589] 938 4.6. Specification Required 940 For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a 941 designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and 942 their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily 943 available public specification, in sufficient detail so that 944 interoperability between independent implementations is possible. 945 The designated expert will review the public specification and 946 evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow interoperable 947 implementations. The intention behind "permanent and readily 948 available" is that a document can reasonably be expected to be 949 findable and retrievable long after IANA assignment of the requested 950 value. Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this 951 requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also cover the 952 case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For RFC 953 publication, the normal RFC review process is expected to provide the 954 necessary review for interoperability, though the designated expert 955 may be a particularly well-qualified person to perform such a review. 957 When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification 958 Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert 959 Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion. 961 Examples: 963 Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers 964 [RFC4124] 965 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246] 966 ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795] 968 4.7. RFC Required 970 With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with 971 associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need 972 not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an 973 RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, or IAB stream, or an RFC Editor 974 Independent Submission [RFC5742]). Unless otherwise specified, any 975 type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, 976 Informational, Experimental, or Historic). 978 4.8. IETF Review 980 (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this 981 document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only 982 through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded 983 through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group Documents 984 [RFC2026] [RFC5378]. 986 The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be 987 reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working 988 groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure 989 that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect 990 interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an 991 inappropriate or damaging manner. To ensure adequate community 992 review, such documents will always undergo an IETF Last Call. 994 Examples: 996 IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025] 997 Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005] 998 TLS Extension Types [RFC5246] 1000 4.9. Standards Action 1002 For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through 1003 Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. 1005 Examples: 1007 BGP message types [RFC4271] 1008 Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283] 1009 TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246] 1010 DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340] 1012 4.10. IESG Approval 1014 New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no 1015 requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has 1016 discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a 1017 case-by-case basis. 1019 IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case"; 1020 indeed, it has seldom been used in practice during the period RFC 1021 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is intended to be available in 1022 conjunction with other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case 1023 where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be 1024 employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. 1025 IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review 1026 processes implied by other policies that could have been employed for 1027 a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be appropriate, 1028 however, in cases where expediency is desired and there is strong 1029 consensus (such as from a working group) for making the assignment. 1031 The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation under IESG 1032 Approval: 1034 o The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another path for 1035 registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no 1036 compelling reason not to use that path. 1038 o Before approving a request, the community should be consulted, via 1039 a "call for comments" that provides as much information as is 1040 reasonably possible about the request. 1042 Examples: 1044 IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771] 1045 IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228] 1046 Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275] 1048 5. Designated Experts 1050 5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts 1052 IANA does not define registry policy itself; rather, it carries out 1053 policies that have been defined by others and published in RFCs. As 1054 part of that process, review of proposed registrations is often 1055 appropriate. 1057 A common way to ensure such review is for a proposed registration to 1058 be published as an RFC, as this ensures that the specification is 1059 publicly and permanently available. It is particularly important if 1060 any potential interoperability issues might arise. For example, some 1061 assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of 1062 protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to 1063 be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit 1064 cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols 1065 on which they are built. 1067 In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 1068 register a protocol element is excessive. 1070 However, it is generally still useful (and sometimes necessary) to 1071 discuss proposed registrations within the community, on a mailing 1072 list. Such a mailing list provides opportunity for public review 1073 prior to assignment, and allows for a consultative process when 1074 registrants want help in understanding what a proper registration 1075 should contain. 1077 While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical 1078 feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some 1079 time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate 1080 in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such 1081 discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated 1082 expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an 1083 assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual 1084 who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and 1085 returning a recommendation to IANA. 1087 It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated 1088 experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert 1089 to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards 1090 requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the 1091 expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether 1092 or not to make the assignment or registration. 1094 It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the 1095 time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of 1096 that topic, see Section 2.3.2. 1098 5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 1100 The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate 1101 review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow, 1102 depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert. 1103 This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts, 1104 discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working 1105 group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc. 1106 Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as 1107 documented with the protocol that creates or uses the namespace. See 1108 the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for 1109 specific examples. 1111 Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions 1112 to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to 1113 be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are 1114 expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, 1115 or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted 1116 norms such as those in Section 5.3. 1118 In registries where a pool of experts evaluates requests, the pool 1119 should have a single chair responsible for defining how requests are 1120 to be assigned to and reviewed by experts. In some cases, the expert 1121 pool may consist of a primary and backups, with the backups involved 1122 only when the primary expert is unavailable. In other cases, IANA 1123 might assign requests to individual members in sequential or 1124 approximate random order. In the event that IANA finds itself having 1125 received conflicting advice from its experts, it is the 1126 responsibility of the pool's chair to resolve the issue and provide 1127 IANA with clear instructions. 1129 If a designated expert is conflicted for a particular review (is, for 1130 example, an author or significant proponent of a specification 1131 related to the registration under review), that expert should recuse 1132 himself. In the event that all the designated experts are 1133 conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated for 1134 the conflicted review. 1136 It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some 1137 registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a 1138 request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups. 1139 In cases of disagreement among those experts, it is the 1140 responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation 1141 to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among 1142 experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating 1143 body may need to step in to resolve the problem. 1145 This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to 1146 documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may 1147 use a registration policy that requires a designated expert only if 1148 those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are 1149 appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by 1150 the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream. 1152 5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF 1154 Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed 1155 by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area 1156 Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or 1157 updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when 1158 the first registration request is received. Because experts 1159 originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will 1160 appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any 1161 designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion. 1163 The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1, 1164 applies to issues that arise with the designated expert team. For 1165 this purpose, the designated expert team takes the place of the 1166 working group in that description. 1168 5.3. Designated Expert Reviews 1170 In the years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to use, 1171 experience has led to the following observations: 1173 o A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally 1174 within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex 1175 ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for 1176 those needing assignments, such as when products need code points 1177 to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed 1178 under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester 1179 and IANA should have some transparency into the process if an 1180 answer cannot be given quickly. 1182 o If a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within 1183 a reasonable period of time, either with a response or with a 1184 reasonable explanation for the delay (some requests may be 1185 particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must 1186 raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by 1187 delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take 1188 appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and 1189 accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a new expert. 1191 o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the 1192 burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a 1193 shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as 1194 appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting 1195 the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have 1196 the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert 1197 must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. 1199 When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear 1200 guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing 1201 an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where 1202 there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be 1203 that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling 1204 reason to the contrary. Possible reasons to deny a request include 1205 these: 1207 o Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points 1208 should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number 1209 of code points is made and a single code point is the norm. 1211 o Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure 1212 interoperability. 1214 o The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the 1215 extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally 1216 understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and 1217 would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not 1218 the intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a 1219 personal preference nature". Instead, they refer to significant 1220 differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security 1221 model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message 1222 type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed 1223 systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar 1224 result), etc. 1226 o The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. 1228 o The extension would conflict with one under active development by 1229 the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster 1230 interoperability. 1232 When a designated expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the 1233 designated expert in the document itself; instead, any suggested 1234 names should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time 1235 the document is sent to the IESG for approval. This is usually done 1236 in the document shepherd writeup. 1238 If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing 1239 list, its address should be specified. 1241 5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle 1243 Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular 1244 point in time, and represents review of a particular version of the 1245 document. Deciding when the review should take place is a question 1246 of good judgment. And while re-reviews might be done when it's 1247 acknowledged that the documentation of the registered item has 1248 changed substantially, making sure that re-review happens requires 1249 attention and care. 1251 It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or 1252 even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the 1253 designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document 1254 were re-reviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration. 1255 It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area 1256 Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such 1257 changes need to be checked. 1259 6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology 1261 The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of 1262 assignments: 1264 Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in 1265 Section 4.1. 1267 Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described 1268 in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for 1269 any particular use. 1271 Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment 1272 via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that 1273 any values that are not registered are unassigned and 1274 available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to 1275 explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is 1276 distinctly different from "Reserved". 1278 Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. Reserved 1279 values are held for special uses, such as to extend the 1280 namespace when it becomes exhausted. Note that this is 1281 distinctly different from "Unassigned". 1283 Reserved values can be released for assignment by the change 1284 controller for the registry (this is often the IESG, for 1285 registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream). 1287 7. Documentation References in IANA Registries 1289 Usually, registries and registry entries include references to 1290 documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these 1291 references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details 1292 necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document 1293 created the registry or entry. Therefore: 1295 o If a document registers an item that is defined and explained 1296 elsewhere, the registered reference should be to that document, 1297 and not to the document that is merely performing the 1298 registration. 1300 o If the registered item is defined and explained in the current 1301 document, it is important to include sufficient information to 1302 enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper 1303 implementation. 1305 o If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific 1306 section of the reference document, it is useful to include a 1307 section reference. For example, "[RFC9876], Section 3.2", rather 1308 than just "[RFC9876]". 1310 o For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide 1311 information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the 1312 creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the 1313 registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the 1314 process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new 1315 registrants or designated experts, and other such related 1316 information. But note that, while it's important to include this 1317 information in the document, it needn't (and shouldn't) all be in 1318 the IANA Considerations section. See Section 1.1. 1320 8. What to Do in "bis" Documents 1322 On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of 1323 the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as 1324 when RFC 9876 is updated by draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis. When the 1325 original document created registries and/or registered entries, there 1326 is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section in the 1327 "bis" document. 1329 If the registrations specify the original document as a reference, 1330 those registrations should be updated to point to the current (not 1331 obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that will mean 1332 changing the reference to be the "bis" document. There will, though, 1333 be times when a document updates another, and changes the definitive 1334 reference for some items, but not for others. Be sure that the 1335 references are always set to point to the correct, current 1336 documentation for each item. 1338 For example, suppose RFC 9876 registered the "BANANA" flag in the 1339 "Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is 1340 in Section 3.2. 1342 The current registry might look, in part, like this: 1344 Name Description Reference 1345 -------- ------------------- --------- 1346 BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC9876], Section 3.2 1348 If draft-ietf-foo-rfc9876bis obsoletes RFC 9876 and, because of some 1349 rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA 1350 Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this: 1352 IANA is asked to change the registration information for the 1353 BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the following: 1355 Name Description Reference 1356 -------- ------------------- --------- 1357 BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1 1359 In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the 1360 original RFC and the document organization has not changed the 1361 registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do 1362 this: 1364 Because this document obsoletes RFC 9876, IANA is asked to change 1365 all registration information that references [RFC9876] to instead 1366 reference [[this RFC]]. 1368 If information for registered items has been or is being moved to 1369 other documents, then, of course, the registration information should 1370 be changed to point to those other documents. In no case is it 1371 reasonable to leave documentation pointers to the obsoleted document 1372 for any registries or registered items that are still in current use. 1374 It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding 1375 updating references, especially in cases where some references need 1376 to be updated and others do not. 1378 9. Miscellaneous Issues 1380 9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 1382 Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 1383 know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown 1384 that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no 1385 IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In 1386 order to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and 1387 that the author has consciously made such a determination), such 1388 documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: 1390 This document has no IANA actions. 1392 This statement, or an equivalent, must only be inserted after the 1393 working group or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be 1394 true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without 1395 careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA 1396 actions being performed. 1398 If a specification makes use of values from a namespace in which 1399 assignments are not made by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, 1400 with wording such as this: 1402 The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo 1403 registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document 1404 has no IANA actions. 1406 IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left 1407 in the document for the record. This is a change from the prior 1408 practice of requesting that such sections be removed by the RFC 1409 Editor, and authors are asked to accommodate this change. 1411 9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance 1413 For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on 1414 IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment 1415 policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide 1416 what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always 1417 be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through 1418 the IESG when appropriate. 1420 All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to 1421 register or otherwise administer namespace assignments MUST provide 1422 guidelines for administration of the namespace. 1424 9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations 1426 Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a 1427 namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is 1428 being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The 1429 IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described 1430 in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In the absence of 1431 specifications to the contrary, values may only be reassigned for a 1432 different purpose with the consent of the original assignee (when 1433 possible) and with due consideration of the impact of such a 1434 reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation with the 1435 IESG is advised. 1437 9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values 1439 Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because 1440 doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems 1441 still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely 1442 difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use 1443 of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is 1444 running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it 1445 may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When 1446 reclaiming unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be 1447 considered: 1449 o Attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a 1450 value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if 1451 so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never 1452 shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be 1453 known that a value was never actually used at all.) 1455 o Reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence 1456 of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions 1457 should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value 1458 is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs 1459 the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG Approval is 1460 needed in this case. 1462 o It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit 1463 comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be 1464 appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF 1465 process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed 1466 some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942]. 1468 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner 1470 Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative 1471 contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as 1472 contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what 1473 role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this 1474 item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the 1475 individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual 1476 was acting for? 1478 This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed 1479 jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might 1480 want to update the registration. IANA has no way to know what 1481 company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take the 1482 registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream 1483 owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision. 1484 But in other cases, there is no recourse. 1486 Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an 1487 "Assignee" or "Owner" field that can be used to address this 1488 situation, giving IANA clear guidance as to the actual owner of the 1489 registration. This is strongly advised especially for registries 1490 that do not require RFCs to manage their information (registries with 1491 policies such as First Come First Served Section 4.4, Expert Review 1492 Section 4.5, and Specification Required Section 4.6). Alternatively, 1493 organizations can put an organizational role into the "Contact" field 1494 in order to make their ownership clear. 1496 9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry 1498 Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further 1499 registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations 1500 will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be 1501 valid and registrations already in the registry can still be updated. 1503 A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication 1504 that the information in the registry is no longer in current use. 1506 Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer 1507 in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended). 1509 Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to 1510 normal change controls (see Section 2.3.3). Any closure, 1511 obsolescence, or deprecation serves to annotate the registry 1512 involved; the information in the registry remains there for 1513 informational and historic purposes. 1515 10. Appeals 1517 Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made 1518 using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026], 1519 Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the 1520 IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. 1522 11. Mailing Lists 1524 All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing 1525 assignment requests as described in this document are subject to 1526 whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are 1527 currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision. 1529 12. Security Considerations 1531 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 1532 authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to 1533 instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept 1534 clarifications from document authors, relevant working group chairs, 1535 Designated Experts, and mail list participants, too. 1537 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 1538 protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities 1539 related to how an assigned number is used may change as well. As new 1540 vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such 1541 vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations, so 1542 that users are not misled as to the true security issues surrounding 1543 the use of a registered number. 1545 An analysis of security issues is generally required for all 1546 protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, 1547 keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such 1548 security considerations are usually included in the protocol document 1549 [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations 1550 associated with a particular registry to specify what (if any) 1551 security considerations must be provided when assigning new values, 1552 and the process for reviewing such claims. 1554 13. IANA Considerations 1556 In accordance with Section 9.1: 1558 This document has no IANA actions. 1560 14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 1561 14.1. 2014: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 1563 Significant additions: 1565 o Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA 1567 o Added Section 1.2, For More Information 1569 o Added Section 2.1, Hierarchical Registry Structure 1571 o Added Section 2.3, Best Practice for Selecting an Appropriate 1572 Policy. 1574 o Added Section 2.3.2, Using Multiple Policies in Combination. 1576 o Added Section 2.3.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry 1578 o Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations 1580 o Moved well-known policies into a separate section for each, 1581 subsections of Section 4. 1583 o Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle 1585 o Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries 1587 o Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents 1589 o Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner 1591 o Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry 1593 Clarifications and such: 1595 o Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier 1596 reading. 1598 o Made clarifications about identification of IANA registries and 1599 use of URLs for them. 1601 o Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved". 1603 o Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to 1604 the designated expert. 1606 o Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to 1607 declare this policy. 1609 o Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout. 1611 14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 1613 Changes include: 1615 o Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better 1616 group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new 1617 registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the 1618 text most applicable to their needs. 1620 o Numerous editorial changes to improve readability. 1622 o Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more 1623 clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF 1624 Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) and are 1625 quick to make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in 1626 the context of IANA Considerations. 1628 o Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies. 1630 o Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in 1631 RFCs". 1633 o "Specification Required" now implies use of a Designated Expert to 1634 evaluate specs for sufficient clarity. 1636 o Significantly changed the wording in the Designated Experts 1637 section. Main purpose is to make clear that Expert Reviewers are 1638 accountable to the community, and to provide some guidance for 1639 review criteria in the default case. 1641 o Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal 1642 RFC 2026 appeals path is used. 1644 o Added a section about reclaiming unused values. 1646 o Added a section on after-the-fact registrations. 1648 o Added a section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate 1649 possible assignments (such as by a Designated Expert) are subject 1650 to normal IETF rules. 1652 15. Acknowledgments 1654 15.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2014) 1656 Thomas Narten and Harald Tveit Alvestrand edited the two earlier 1657 editions of this document (RFCs 2434 and 5226), and Thomas continues 1658 his role in this third edition. Much of the text from RFC 5226 1659 remains in this edition. 1661 Thank you to Amanda Baber and Pearl Liang for their multiple reviews 1662 and suggestions for making this document as thorough as possible. 1664 This document has benefited from thorough review and comments by Tony 1665 Hansen, John Klensin, and Mark Nottingham. 1667 Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for reorganizing some of the text 1668 for better organization and readability, and to Tony Hansen for 1669 acting as document shepherd. 1671 15.2. Acknowledgments from the second edition (2008) 1673 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 5226 was: 1675 This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko, 1676 Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Spencer 1677 Dawkins, Barbara Denny, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley, 1678 John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus 1679 Westerlund, and Bert Wijnen. 1681 15.3. Acknowledgments from the first edition (1998) 1683 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was: 1685 Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what 1686 IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently 1687 provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian 1688 Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 1689 document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was 1690 borrowed from [RFC4288]. 1692 16. References 1694 16.1. Normative References 1696 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1697 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 1699 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1700 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1702 16.2. Informative References 1704 [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1705 1981. 1707 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 1708 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 1709 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 1711 [RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition 1712 of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, 1713 September 2000. 1715 [RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group 1716 Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, February 1717 2002. 1719 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 1720 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 1721 2003. 1723 [RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote 1724 Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July 1725 2003. 1727 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 1728 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 1730 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J. and H. 1731 Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 1732 3748, June 2004. 1734 [RFC3942] Volz, B., "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration 1735 Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4) Options", RFC 3942, November 1736 2004. 1738 [RFC3968] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority 1739 (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session 1740 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, December 1741 2004. 1743 [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter 1744 Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. 1746 [RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying 1747 Material in DNS", RFC 4025, March 2005. 1749 [RFC4044] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC 4044, 1750 May 2005. 1752 [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of 1753 Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 1754 2005. 1756 [RFC4169] Torvinen, V., Arkko, J. and M. Naslund, "Hypertext 1757 Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using 1758 Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) Version-2", RFC 1759 4169, November 2005. 1761 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 1762 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 1764 [RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H. and K. 1765 Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 1766 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005. 1768 [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and 1769 Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. 1771 [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M. and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion 1772 Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. 1774 [RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and 1775 Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC 1776 4395, February 2006. 1778 [RFC4422] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and 1779 Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. 1781 [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge 1782 Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006. 1784 [RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 1785 Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access 1786 Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006. 1788 [RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types 1789 Registry", RFC 4589, July 2006. 1791 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 1792 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006. 1794 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1795 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. 1797 [RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide 1798 to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008. 1800 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 1801 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP 1802 92, RFC 5742, December 2009. 1804 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L. and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 1805 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 1806 March 2010. 1808 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G. and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 1809 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 1810 2010. 1812 [RFC6195] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 1813 Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6195, March 2011. 1815 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 1816 in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 1818 [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design 1819 Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, 1820 September 2012. 1822 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 1823 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. 1825 Authors' Addresses 1827 Michelle Cotton 1828 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1829 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 1831 US 1833 Phone: +1 310 823 9358 1834 Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org 1835 URI: http://www.icann.org/ 1837 Barry Leiba 1838 Huawei Technologies 1840 Phone: +1 646 827 0648 1841 Email: barryleiba@computer.org 1842 URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ 1844 Thomas Narten 1845 IBM Corporation 1846 3039 Cornwallis Ave., PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 1847 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1848 US 1850 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1851 Email: narten@us.ibm.com