idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits45067/draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 1194. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1165. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1172. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1178. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC2434, but the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 4, 2007) is 5342 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: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 726, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3968' is defined on line 1075, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (ref. 'IANA-CONSIDERATIONS') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4288 (ref. 'MIME-REG') (Obsoleted by RFC 6838) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-carpenter-extension-recs-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2929 (Obsoleted by RFC 5395) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3171 (Obsoleted by RFC 5771) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3978 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3932 (Obsoleted by RFC 5742) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4306 (Obsoleted by RFC 5996) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4366 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246, RFC 6066) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4346 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4395 (Obsoleted by RFC 7595) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4995 (Obsoleted by RFC 5795) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 21 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten 3 IBM 4 Harald Alvestrand 5 Obsoletes (if approved): 2434 Google 6 Expires: April 4, 2007 October 4, 2007 7 Intended Status: BCP 9 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 36 This Internet-Draft expires in six months. 38 Abstract 40 Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and 41 other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and 42 deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a 43 new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication 44 transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent 45 values and interpretations in different implementations, their 46 assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF 47 protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers 48 Authority (IANA). 50 In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs 51 guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be 52 assigned, or when modifications to existing values can be made. If 53 IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space, 54 the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that 55 role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in 56 formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and 57 provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that 58 must be included in documents that place demands on IANA. 60 This document obsoletes RFC 2434. 62 Contents 64 Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 66 1. Introduction............................................. 4 68 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary.......... 5 70 3. Designated Experts....................................... 5 71 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts............... 5 72 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert................... 7 73 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews........................... 7 75 4. Creating A Registry...................................... 9 76 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.................. 9 77 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry..... 13 78 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries.... 15 80 5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry........... 15 81 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values.... 15 82 5.2. Updating Registrations.............................. 17 83 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures.................. 18 85 6. Miscellaneous Issues..................................... 18 86 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 18 87 6.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance.............. 19 88 6.3. After-The-Fact Registrations........................ 19 89 6.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values.......................... 20 91 7. Appeals.................................................. 20 93 8. Mailing Lists............................................ 20 95 9. Security Considerations.................................. 21 97 10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................ 21 99 11. IANA Considerations..................................... 22 101 12. Acknowledgments......................................... 22 103 13. Normative References.................................... 23 105 14. Informative References.................................. 23 107 15. Authors' Addresses...................................... 26 109 1. Introduction 111 Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other 112 well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or 113 MIME media types [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has been defined 114 and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., a 115 new option type in DHCP [DHCP-OPTIONS] or a new encryption or 116 authentication transform for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such 117 fields have consistent values and interpretations in different 118 implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central 119 authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet 120 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU]. 122 In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field 123 a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or 124 another kind of value. The binding or association of a specific value 125 with a particular purpose within a name space is called an assigned 126 number (or assigned value, or sometimes a "code point", "protocol 127 constant", or "protocol parameter"). Each assignment of a value in a 128 name space is called a registration. 130 In order for IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs 131 guidelines describing the conditions under which new values should be 132 assigned, or when (and how) modifications to existing values can be 133 made. This document provides guidelines to authors on what sort of 134 text should be added to their documents in order to provide IANA 135 clear guidelines and reviews issues that should be considered in 136 formulating an appropriate policy for assigning numbers to name 137 spaces. 139 Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some 140 cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that 141 further assignments can be made independently and with no further 142 (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the 143 IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while 144 subdomains are administered by the organization to which the space 145 has been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as 146 defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]; IANA manages the 147 subtree rooted at "iso.org.dod.internet" (1.3.6.1) . When a name 148 space is delegated, the scope of IANA is limited to the parts of the 149 namespace where IANA has authority. 151 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 152 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 153 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. 154 For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to 155 the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards 156 process. 158 2. Why Management of a Name Space May be Necessary 160 One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the 161 space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made 162 carefully to prevent exhaustion of the space. If the space is 163 essentially unlimited, on the other hand, potential exhaustion will 164 probably not be a practical concern at all. Even when the space is 165 essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable to have at 166 least a minimal review prior to assignment in order to: 168 - prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For 169 example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be 170 desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings 171 that correspond to desirable names (e.g., existing company names). 173 - provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and 174 is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal 175 review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent 176 assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not 177 actually needed (i.e., an existing assignment for an essentially 178 equivalent service already exists). 180 A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name 181 space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate, 182 as it lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments. 184 A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential 185 impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed 186 protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed, 187 review is often essential to avoid future interoperability problems 188 [PROTOCOL-EXT]. 190 When the name space is essentially unlimited and there are no 191 potential interoperability issues, assigned numbers can safely be 192 given out to anyone without any subjective review. In such cases, 193 IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is given 194 specific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and 195 what information must be provided as part of a well-formed request 196 for an assigned number. 198 3. Designated Experts 200 3.1. The Motivation For Designated Experts 202 It should be noted that IANA does not create or define assignment 203 policy itself; rather, it carries out policies that have been defined 204 by others and published in RFCs. IANA must be given a set of 205 guidelines that allow it to make allocation decisions with minimal 206 subjectivity and without requiring any technical expertise with 207 respect to the protocols that make use of a registry. 209 In many cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate, 210 and the question becomes who should perform the review and what is 211 the purpose of the review. One might think that an IETF Working 212 Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should be consulted. 213 In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they cannot be 214 considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for name spaces 215 to be created through individual submission documents, for which no 216 WG is ever formed. 218 One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to 219 have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such 220 an action helps ensure that the specification is publicly and 221 permanently available, and allows some review of the specification 222 prior to publication and assignment of the requested code points. 223 This is the preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly 224 important if any potential interoperability issues can arise. For 225 example, some assignments are not just assignments, but also involve 226 an element of protocol specification. A new option may define fields 227 that need to be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may 228 not fit cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base 229 protocols on which they are built. 231 In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to 232 get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful 233 (and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing 234 list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for 235 media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a 236 current or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for 237 new registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, 238 or to give advice to persons wanting help in understanding what a 239 proper registration should contain. 241 While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical 242 feedback, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some 243 time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate 244 in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such 245 discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated 246 expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an 247 assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual who 248 is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and 249 returning a recommendation to IANA. 251 It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated 252 experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert 253 to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards 254 requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the 255 expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA whether or not 256 to make the assignment or registration. 258 3.2. The Role of the Designated Expert 260 The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating 261 the appropriate review of an assignment request. The review may be 262 wide or narrow, depending to the situation and the judgment of the 263 designated expert. This may involve consultation with a set of 264 technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, or 265 consultation with a working group (or its mailing list if the working 266 group has disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows 267 specific review criteria as documented with the protocol that creates 268 or uses the namespace. (See the IANA Considerations sections of 269 [RFC3748,RFC3575] for examples that have been done for specific name 270 spaces). 272 Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions 273 to the IETF community and the evaluation process is not intended to 274 be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are 275 expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, 276 or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally-accepted 277 norms, e.g., those in section 3.3. 279 Section 5.2 discusses disputes and appeals in more detail. 281 Designated experts are appointed by the IESG (normally upon 282 recommendation by the relevant Area Director). They are typically 283 named at the time a document creating or updating a name space is 284 approved by the IESG, but as experts originally appointed may later 285 become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary. 287 Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they may be 288 removed by the IESG. 290 3.3. Designated Expert Reviews 292 In the eight years since RFC 2434 was published and has been put to 293 use, experience has led to the following observations: 295 - a designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally 296 within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex 297 ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for those 298 needing assignments, such as when products need code points to 299 ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed under a 300 firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester and 301 IANA should have some transparency into the process if an answer 302 cannot be given quickly. 304 - if a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within 305 a reasonable period of time, either with a response, or with a 306 reasonable explanation for a delay (e.g., some requests may be 307 particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must 308 raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by 309 delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take 310 appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and 311 accepts their responsibilities, or appoint a new expert. 313 - The designated expert is not required to personally bear the 314 burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a 315 shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as 316 appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting 317 the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have 318 the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert 319 must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. 321 In the case where a designated expert is used, but there are no 322 specific documented criteria for performing an evaluation, the 323 presumption should be that a code point should be granted, unless 324 there is a compelling reason to the contrary. Possible reasons to 325 deny a request include: 327 - scarcity of codepoints, where the finite remaining codepoints 328 should be prudently managed, or when a request for a large number 329 of codepoints is made, when a single codepoint is the norm. 331 - documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure 332 interoperability. 334 - the code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the 335 extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally 336 understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended, and 337 would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the 338 intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a 339 personal preference nature;" instead, they refer to significant 340 differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security 341 model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message 342 type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed 343 systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar 344 result), etc. 346 - the extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems. 348 - the extension would conflict with one under active development by 349 the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster 350 interoperability. 352 4. Creating A Registry 354 Creating a registry involves describing the name spaces to be 355 created, an initial set of assignments (if appropriate) and 356 guidelines on how future assignments are to be made. 358 Once a registry has been created, IANA records assignments that have 359 been made. The following labels describe the status of an individual 360 (or range) of assignments: 362 Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in 363 Section 4.1 365 Experimental: Available for experimental use as described in 366 [EXPERIMENTATION]. IANA does not record specific assignments for 367 any particular use. 369 Unassigned: Unused and available for assignment via documented 370 procedures. 372 Reserved: Not to be assigned. Reserved values are held for special 373 uses, such as to extend the name space when it become exhausted. 374 Reserved values are not available for general assignment. 376 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions 378 The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use 379 today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to 380 date to describe the procedure for assigning new values in a name 381 space. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual 382 requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and 383 unambiguous. However, use of these terms is RECOMMENDED where 384 possible, since their meaning is widely understood. 386 Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and 387 purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to 388 prevent multiple sites from using the same value in 389 different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for 390 IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record 391 them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad 392 interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites 393 making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no 394 conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use). 396 Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP-IANA], Fibre 397 Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044], Exchange Types in the 398 IKEv2 header [RFC4306]. 400 Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the 401 purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See 402 [EXPERIMENTATION] for details. 404 Example: Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, 405 UDP, and TCP Headers [RFC4727]. 407 Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values 408 provided they have been given control over that part of the 409 name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the 410 namespace according to one of the other policies. 412 Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers, IP addresses. 414 First Come First Served - Assignments are made to anyone on a 415 first come, first served basis. There is no substantive 416 review of the request, other than to ensure that it is 417 well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. 418 However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical 419 information, such as a a point of contact (including an 420 email address) and a brief description of how the value 421 will be used. Additional information specific to the type 422 of value requested may also need to be provided, as defined 423 by the name space. For numbers, the exact value is 424 generally assigned by IANA; with names, specific text 425 strings can usually be requested. 427 Examples: SASL mechanism names [RFC4422], LDAP Protocol 428 Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520]. 430 Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated 431 Expert is required. The required documentation and review 432 criteria for use by the Designated Expert should be 433 provided when defining the registry. For example, see 434 Sections 6 and 7.2 in [RFC3748]. 436 Examples: EAP Method Types [RFC3748], HTTP Digest AKA 437 algorithm versions [RFC4169], URI schemes [RFC4395], 438 GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]. 440 Specification required - Values and their meaning must be 441 documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily 442 available public specification, in sufficient detail so 443 that interoperability between independent implementations 444 is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies 445 usage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public 446 specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear 447 to allow interoperable implementations. The intention 448 behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document 449 can be reasonably be expected to easily be found long after 450 IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an 451 RFC is the ideal means of achieving this requirement. For 452 RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected 453 to provide the necessary review for interoperability, 454 though the Designated Expert may be a particularly well- 455 qualified person to perform such a review. 457 Examples: Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model 458 Identifiers [RFC4124], TLS ClientCertificateType 459 identifiers [RFC4346], ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC4995]. 461 RFC Required - RFC publication (either as IETF Submission or as an 462 RFC Editor submission [RFC3932]) suffices. Unless otherwise 463 specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (e.g., 464 Informational, Experimental, Standards Track, etc.) 466 IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA- 467 CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs 468 that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored 469 IETF (or WG) Documents [RFC3932,RFC3978]. The intention is 470 that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed 471 by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if 472 suitable working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the 473 proposed assignment will not negatively impact 474 interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an 475 inappropriate or damaging manner. 477 To ensure adequate community review, such documents are 478 shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored documents with 479 an IETF Last Call. 481 Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025], Accounting- 482 Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS Handshake 483 Hello Extensions [RFC4366]. 485 Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track 486 RFCs approved by the IESG. 488 Examples: BGP message types [RFC4271], Mobile Node 489 Identifier option types [RFC4283], DCCP Packet Types 490 [RFC4340]. 492 IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG. 493 Although there is no requirement that the request be 494 documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request 495 documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case 496 basis. 498 IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a 499 "common case;" indeed, it has seldom been used in practice 500 during the period RFC 2434 was in effect. Rather, it is 501 intended to be available in conjunction with other policies 502 as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other 503 allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a 504 timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG 505 Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review 506 processes implied by other policies that could have been 507 employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would 508 be appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is 509 desired and there is strong consensus for making the 510 assignment (e.g., WG consensus). 512 The following guidelines are suggested for any evaluation 513 under IESG Approval: 515 - The IESG can (and should) reject a request if another 516 path is available that is more appropriate and there is 517 no compelling reason to bypass normal community review. 519 - before approving a request, the community should be 520 consulted, via a "call for comments" that provides as 521 much information as is reasonably possible about the 522 request. 524 Examples: IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC3171], IPv4 IGMP 525 Type and Code values [RFC3228], Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and 526 Option values [RFC3775]. 528 It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name 529 space into multiple categories, with assignments within each category 530 handled differently. For example, many protocols now partition name 531 spaces into two (or even more) parts, where one range is reserved for 532 Private or Experimental Use, while other ranges are reserved for 533 globally unique assignments assigned following some review process. 534 Dividing a name space into ranges makes it possible to have different 535 policies in place for different ranges. 537 4.2. What To Put In Documents That Create A Registry 539 The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered 540 in formulating a policy for assigning values in name spaces. It is 541 the Working Group and/or document author's job to formulate an 542 appropriate policy and specify it in the appropriate document. In 543 almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Considerations" section is 544 appropriate. The following and later sections define what is needed 545 for the different types of IANA actions. 547 Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of 548 an existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining 549 that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST 550 provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In 551 particular, instructions MUST include: 553 1) The name of the registry (or sub-registry) being created and/or 554 maintained. The name will appear on the IANA web page and will 555 be referred to in future documents that need to allocate a value 556 from the new space. The full name (and abbreviation, if 557 appropriate) should be provided. It is highly desirable that the 558 chosen name not be easily confusable with the name of another 559 registry. When creating a sub-registry, the registry that it is 560 a part of should be clearly identified. When referring to an 561 already existing registry, providing a URL to precisely identify 562 the registry is helpful. All such URLs, however, will be removed 563 from the RFC prior to final publication. For example, documents 564 could contain: [TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take 565 place at the following location: 566 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry] 568 2) What information must be provided as part of a request in order 569 to assign a new value. This information may include the need to 570 document relevant security considerations, if any. 572 3) The review process that will apply to all future requests for a 573 value from the namespace. 575 Note: When a Designated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name 576 the Designated Expert in the document itself; instead, the name 577 should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time 578 the document is sent to the IESG for approval. 580 If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public 581 mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types), 582 that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that 583 when mailing lists are specified, the requirement for a 584 Designated Expert MUST also be specified (see Section 3). 586 If IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an 587 outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the 588 requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity. 590 4) The size, format and syntax of registry entries. When creating a 591 new name/number space, authors must describe any technical 592 requirements on registry (and sub-registry) values (e.g., valid 593 ranges for integers, length limitations on strings, etc.) as 594 well as the exact format that registry values should be 595 displayed in. For number assignments, one should specify 596 whether values are to be recorded in decimal, hexadecimal or 597 some other format. For strings, the encoding format should be 598 specified (e.g., ASCII, UTF8, etc.) Authors should also clearly 599 specify what fields to record in the registry. 601 5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions should 602 be provided to identify any initial assignments or 603 registrations. In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved 604 for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be 605 clearly indicated. 607 When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is 608 quite acceptable to pick one (or more) of the example policies listed 609 in Section 4.1 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the 610 preferred mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide 611 the desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the 612 above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of 613 considerations should be taken into account by the review process. 614 For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated 615 Expert, but includes specific additional criteria the Designated 616 Expert should follow. 618 For example, a document could say something like: 620 This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see 621 Section y), assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space 622 [to be removed upon publication: 623 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters] [DHCP- 624 OPTIONS,DHCP-IANA]: 626 Data 627 Tag Name Length Meaning 628 ---- ---- ------ ------- 629 TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server 631 The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which 632 IANA is to create and maintain a new sub-registry entitled 633 "FooType values" under the FooBar option. Initial values for the 634 DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments 635 are to be made through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. 636 Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its 637 associated value. 639 Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition 640 ---- ------------------------ ---------- 641 0 Reserved 642 1 Frobnitz See Section y.1 643 2 NitzFrob See Section y.2 644 3-254 Unassigned 645 255 Reserved 647 For examples of documents that provide detailed guidance to IANA on 648 the issue of assigning numbers, consult [RFC2929, RFC3575, RFC3968, 649 RFC4520]. 651 4.3. Updating IANA Guidelines For Existing Registries 653 Updating the registration process for an already existing (i.e., 654 previously created) name space (whether created explicitly or 655 implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when creating a 656 new namespace. That is, a document is produced that makes reference 657 to the existing namespace and then provides detailed guidelines for 658 handling assignments in each individual name space. Such documents 659 are normally processed as BCPs [IETF-PROCESS]. 661 Example documents that updated the guidelines for managing (then) 662 pre-existing registries include: [RFC2929,RFC3228,RFC3575]. 664 5. Registering New Values In An Existing Registry 666 5.1. What to Put In Documents When Registering Values 668 Often, documents request an assignment from an already existing name 669 space (i.e., one created by a previously-published RFC). In such 670 cases: 672 - Documents should clearly identify the name space in which each 673 value is to be registered. If the registration goes into a sub- 674 registry, the author should clearly describe where the assignment 675 or registration should go. It is helpful to use the exact name 676 space name as listed on the IANA web page (and defining RFC), and 677 cite the RFC where the name space is defined. 679 Note 1: There is no need to mention what the assignment policy for 680 new assignments is, as that should be clear from the references. 682 Note 2: When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to 683 precisely identify the registry is helpful. All such URLs, 684 however, will be removed from the RFC prior to final publication. 685 For example, documents could contain: [TO BE REMOVED: This 686 registration should take place at the following location: 687 http://www.iana.org/assignments/foobar-registry] 689 - Each value requested should be given a unique reference. When the 690 value is numeric, use the notation: TBD1, TBD2, etc. Throughout 691 the document where an actual IANA-assigned value should be filled 692 in, use the "TBDx" notation. This helps ensure that the final RFC 693 has the correct assigned values inserted in in all of the relevant 694 places where the value is expected to appear in the final 695 document. For values that are text strings, a specific name can be 696 suggested. IANA will normally assign the name, unless it conflicts 697 with a name already in use. 699 - Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA and documents 700 should specify values of "TBD". However, in some cases a value may 701 have been used for testing or in early implementations. In such 702 cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what specific 703 value should be used (together with the reason for the choice). 704 For example, one might include the text "the value XXX is 705 suggested as it is used in implementations". However, it should be 706 noted that suggested values are just that; IANA will attempt to 707 assign them, but may find that impossible, if the proposed number 708 has already been assigned for some other use. 710 For some registries, IANA has a longstanding policy prohibiting 711 assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization name 712 basis, e.g., codes are always assigned sequentially unless there 713 is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this 714 document is intended to change those policies or prevent their 715 future application. 717 - The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA 718 actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the 719 document as appropriate. When multiple values are requested, it is 720 generally helpful to include a summary table. It is also helpful 721 for this table to be in the same format as it should appear on the 722 IANA web site. For example: 724 Value Description Reference 725 -------- ------------------- --------- 726 tbd1 Foobar [RFCXXXX] 728 Note: in cases where authors feel that including the full table is 729 too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table, 730 but may include a note asking the table be removed prior to 731 publication of the final RFC. 733 As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment 734 of a DHCPv6 option number: 736 IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS 737 Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to 738 the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space 739 defined in section 24.3 of RFC 3315. 741 5.2. Updating Registrations 743 Registrations are a request to assign a new value, including the 744 related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even 745 after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain 746 additional information that may need to be updated over time. For 747 example, MIME media types, character sets, language tags, etc. 748 typically include more information than just the registered value 749 itself. Example information can include point of contact information, 750 security issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In 751 such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state 752 who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. In 753 different cases, it may be appropriate to specify one or more of the 754 following: 756 - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same 757 constraints and review as with new registrations. 759 - Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for 760 cases where others have significant objections to claims in a 761 registration, but the author does not agree to change the 762 registration. 764 - Designate the IESG, a Designated Expert or another entity as 765 having the right to change the registrant associated with a 766 registration and any requirements or conditions on doing so. 767 This is mainly to get around the problem when a registrant 768 cannot be reached in order to make necessary updates. 770 5.3. Overriding Registration Procedures 772 Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the 773 documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always 774 adequately cover the reality after the protocol is deployed. For 775 example, many older routing protocols do not have documented, 776 detailed IANA considerations. In addition, documented IANA 777 considerations are sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even 778 working group documents (for which there is strong consensus) to 779 obtain code points from IANA in advance of actual RFC publication. 780 In other cases, the documented procedures are unclear or neglected to 781 cover all the cases. In order to allow assignments in individual 782 cases where there is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should 783 go forward, but the documented procedures do not support such an 784 assignment, the IESG is granted authority to approve assignments in 785 such cases. The intention is not to overrule properly documented 786 procedures, or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document 787 their IANA Considerations. Instead, the intention is to permit 788 assignments in individual cases where it is obvious that the 789 assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA process just to 790 assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy a burden. 792 In general, the IETF would like to see deficient IANA registration 793 procedures for a namespace revised through the IETF standards 794 process, but not at the cost of unreasonable delay for needed 795 assignments. If the IESG has had to take the action in this section, 796 it is a strong indicator that the IANA registration procedures should 797 be updated, possibly in parallel with ongoing protocol work. 799 6. Miscellaneous Issues 801 6.1. When There Are No IANA Actions 803 Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to 804 know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown 805 that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no 806 IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order 807 to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that 808 the author has consciously made such a determination!), such 809 documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states: 811 This document has no IANA Actions. 813 This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted 814 after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be 815 true. Using such wording as a matter of "boilerplate" or without 816 careful consideration can lead to incomplete or incorrect IANA 817 actions being performed. 819 If a specification makes use of values from a name space that is not 820 managed by IANA, it may be useful to note this fact, e.g., with 821 wording such as: 823 The values of the Foobar parameter are assigned by the Barfoo 824 registry on behalf of the Rabfoo Forum. Therefore, this document 825 has no IANA Actions. 827 In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered 828 valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be 829 considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may 830 be removed before archival publication. This choice should be made 831 clear in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as 833 [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.] 835 or 837 [RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.] 839 6.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance 841 For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on 842 IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evaluation 843 policy, IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue to decide 844 what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always 845 be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process. 847 All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to 848 register or otherwise manage name space assignments MUST provide 849 guidelines for managing the name space. 851 6.3. After-The-Fact Registrations 853 Occasionally, IANA becomes aware that an unassigned value from a 854 managed name space is in use on the Internet, or that an assigned 855 value is being used for a different purpose than originally 856 registered. IANA will not condone such misuse, i.e., procedures of 857 the type described in this document MUST be applied to such cases. In 858 the absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be 859 reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original 860 assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of 861 such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation 862 with the IESG is advised. 864 6.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values 866 Reclaiming previously-assigned values for reuse is tricky, because 867 doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems 868 still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely 869 difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use 870 of a particular value. However, in cases where the name space is 871 running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it 872 may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When reclaiming 873 unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be considered: 875 - attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a 876 value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if 877 so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never 878 shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be 879 known that a value was never actually used at all.) 881 - reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence 882 of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions 883 should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value 884 is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs 885 the cost of a hostile reclamation. In any case, IESG approval is 886 needed in this case. 888 - it may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit 889 comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be 890 appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF 891 process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed 892 some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942] 894 7. Appeals 896 Appeals on registration decisions made by IANA can be appealed using 897 the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of 898 [IETF-PROCESS]. Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, 899 followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB, etc. 901 8. Mailing Lists 903 All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing 904 assignment requests as described in this document are subject to 905 whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are 906 currently defined by Best Current Practices or by IESG decision. 908 9. Security Considerations 910 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 911 authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to 912 instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It also may accept 913 clarifications from document authors, relevant WG chairs, Designated 914 Experts and mail list participants too. 916 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 917 protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities 918 related to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a 919 protocol) may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, 920 information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to 921 existing registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true 922 security issues surrounding the use of a registered number. 924 An analysis of security issues is generally required for all 925 protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, 926 keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such 927 security considerations are usually included in the protocol document 928 [RFC3552]. It is the responsibility of the IANA Considerations 929 associated with a particular registry to specify what (if any) 930 security considerations must be provided when assigning new values, 931 and the process for reviewing such claims. 933 10. Changes Relative to RFC 2434 935 Changes include: 937 - Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better 938 group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new 939 registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the 940 text most applicable to thier needs. 942 - Numerous editorial changes to improve readability. 944 - Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more 945 clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF 946 Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) are quick to 947 make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in the 948 context of IANA Considerations. 950 - Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies. 952 - Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in 953 RFCs". 955 - "Specification Required" now implies use of Designated Expert to 956 evaluate specs for sufficient clarity. 958 - Significantly changed the wording in Section 3. Main purpose is to 959 make clear that Expert Reviewers are accountable to the community, 960 and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the default 961 case. 963 - Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal 964 RFC2026 appeals path is used. 966 - Added section about reclaiming unused value. 968 - Added a section on after-the-fact registrations. 970 - Added section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate 971 possible assignments (e.g., by a designated expert) are subject to 972 normal IETF rules. 974 11. IANA Considerations 976 This document is all about IANA Considerations, but has no IANA 977 actions. 979 12. Acknowledgments 981 This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko, 982 Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Barbara 983 Denny, Spencer Dawkins, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley, 984 John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus 985 Westerland and Bert Wijnen. 987 The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was: 989 Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what 990 IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently 991 provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian 992 Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the 993 document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was 994 borrowed from [MIME-REG]. 996 13. Normative References 998 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 999 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1001 14. Informative References 1003 [ASSIGNED] "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line 1004 Database," J. Reynolds, Ed., RFC 3232, January 1005 2002. 1007 [DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP 1008 Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 1010 [DHCP-IANA] Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP 1011 Options and Message Types. R. Droms, RFC 2939, 1012 September 2000. 1014 [EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 1015 Considered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January 1016 2004. 1018 [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1019 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 1020 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 1022 [IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work 1023 of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B. 1024 Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June 1025 2000. 1027 [IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- 1028 Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 1030 [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. 1032 [IPSEC] S. Kent, K. Seo., "Security Architecture for the Internet 1033 Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 1035 [MIME-REG] "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures". 1036 N. Freed, J. Klensin. December 2005, RFC 4288. 1038 [PROTOCOL-EXT] "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", 1039 draft-carpenter-extension-recs-02.txt (Work in 1040 Progress). 1042 [RFC2929] Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D. Eastlake 1043 3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September 1044 2000. 1046 [RFC3171] "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments". 1047 Z. Albanna, K. Almeroth, D. Meyer, M. Schipper. 1048 August 2001. 1050 [RFC3228] IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management 1051 Protocol (IGMP). B. Fenner. February 2002. 1053 [RFC3552] Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations. 1054 E. Rescorla, B. Korver. July 2003. 1056 [RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial 1057 In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003. 1059 [RFC3748] Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), B. Aboba, L. 1060 Blunk, J. Vollbrecht, J. Carlson, H. Levkowetz, 1061 Ed., RFC 3748, June, 2004. 1063 [RFC3978] IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005. 1065 [RFC3775] "Mobility Support in IPv6," D. Johnson, C. Perkins, J. 1066 Arkko. June 2004. 1068 [RFC3932] The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H. 1069 Alvestrand. October 2004. 1071 [RFC3942] "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 1072 4 (DHCPv4) Options", B. Volz. RFC 3942, November 1073 2004 1075 [RFC3968] "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field 1076 Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation 1077 Protocol (SIP)," G. Camarillo. RFC 3968, December 1078 2004. 1080 [RFC4005] "Diameter Network Access Server Application," P. Calhoun, 1081 G. Zorn, D. Spence, D. Mitton. August 2005. 1083 [RFC4025] "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in DNS," M. 1084 Richardson. March 2005. 1086 [RFC4044] "Fibre Channel Management MIB", K. McCloghrie. May 2005. 1088 [RFC4124] "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS 1089 Traffic Engineering," F. Le Faucheur, Ed.. June 1090 2005. 1092 [RFC4169] "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication 1093 Using Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) 1094 Version-2". V. Torvinen, J. Arkko, M. Naslund. 1095 November 2005. 1097 [RFC4271] "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," Y. Rekhter, Ed., T. 1098 Li, Ed., S. Hares, Ed.. January 2006. 1100 [RFC4283] "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)," A. 1101 Patel, K. Leung, M. Khalil, H. Akhtar, K. Chowdhury. 1102 November 2005. 1104 [RFC4306] "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", C. Kaufman, Ed. 1105 December 2005 1107 [RFC4340] "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)," E. Kohler, 1108 M. Handley, S. Floyd. March 2006 1110 [RFC4366] "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions," S. Blake- 1111 Wilson, M. Nystrom, D. Hopwood, J. Mikkelsen, T. 1112 Wright. April 2006. 1114 [RFC4346] "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1," 1115 T. Dierks, E. Rescorla. April 2006. 1117 [RFC4395] "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI 1118 Schemes," T. Hansen, T. Hardie, L. Masinter. 1119 February 2006. 1121 [RFC4422] "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)". A. 1122 Melnikov, Ed., K. Zeilenga, Ed.. June 2006. 1124 [RFC4520] "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations 1125 for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 1126 (LDAP)," K. Zeilenga. June 2006. 1128 [RFC4589] "Location Types Registry," H. Schulzrinne, H. Tschofenig. 1129 July 2006. 1131 [RFC4727] "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, 1132 and TCP Headers". B. Fenner. November 2006. 1134 [RFC4995] "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework," L-E. 1135 Jonsson, G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund. July 2007. 1137 15. Authors' Addresses 1139 Thomas Narten 1140 IBM Corporation 1141 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1142 PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 1143 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1145 Phone: 919-254-7798 1146 EMail: narten@us.ibm.com 1148 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 1149 Google 1150 Beddingen 10 1151 Trondheim, 7014 1152 Norway 1154 Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no 1156 Intellectual Property Statement 1158 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1159 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1160 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1161 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1162 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1163 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1164 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1165 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1167 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1168 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1169 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1170 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1171 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1172 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1174 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1175 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1176 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1177 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 1178 ipr@ietf.org. 1180 Copyright Statement 1182 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 1184 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1185 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1186 retain all their rights. 1188 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1189 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1190 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1191 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1192 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1193 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1194 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.