idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits45729/draft-venaas-pim-join-attr-assignment-policy-00.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 (October 24, 2014) is 2759 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Venaas 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 24, 2014 5 Expires: April 27, 2015 7 PIM Join Attribute Assignment Policy Update 8 draft-venaas-pim-join-attr-assignment-policy-00.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document updates the assignment policy of the PIM Join Attribute 13 registry, changing the assignment policy from IETF Review to 14 Specification Required. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2015. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 3. Review Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 7.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 7.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1. Introduction 63 This document changes the assignment policy of the PIM Join Attribute 64 registry from IETF Review to Specification Required. The assignment 65 polices are defined in [RFC5226]. With this change there is no 66 longer a need for an RFC to be published to assign new join 67 attributes, but a specification must be publicly available, and it 68 will be reviewed by a Designated Expert as defined in [RFC5226]. 70 2. Motivation 72 The assignment policy for the PIM Join Attribute registry was 73 initially IETF Review as specified in [RFC5384]. However, this 74 requires an RFC to be published prior to assignment. There are cases 75 where there is a strong desire to deploy a new protocol or product 76 relying on new Join Attributes without having to wait for the IETF 77 standardisation process. By changing the policy to Specification 78 Required, there will still be a public specification and a review 79 process to ensure it is technically sound, but without waiting for an 80 RFC to be published. 82 3. Review Criteria 84 The expert is expected to ensure that the specification is of 85 sufficient quality to ensure interoperability between 86 implementations, that it does not conflict with how PIM operates, 87 that it will not cause potential deployment issues, and that it does 88 not conflict with other multicast protocols or work in the IETF. 89 Also, potential security implications must be considered. 91 In line with [RFC5384], join attribute specifications are required to 92 specify the procedure to apply if there are multiple instances of the 93 same attribute type. Also it should be considered whether it is 94 appropriate for the attribute to be transitive or not. The conflict 95 resolution procedure must also be considered. If a procedure is 96 specified, does it work as desired, or if not specified, is the 97 default procedure specified in [RFC5384] appropriate for the 98 attribute. 100 4. Security Considerations 102 This document by itself only changes a registry assignment policy 103 which does not have any security issues in itself. When a Designated 104 Expert reviews a new attribute specification, it is expected that the 105 reviewer also considers the security aspects. 107 5. IANA Considerations 109 The assignment policy for the PIM Join Attribute registry is changed 110 to Specification Required. IANA will need to update the registry 111 description and accept and process assignment requests accordingly. 113 6. Acknowledgments 115 There have been discussions about assignment policies for the Join 116 Attribute registry in the PIM WG, with several participants, William 117 Atwood in particular. Based on this the author believes that this 118 document is needed to change the assignment policy. 120 7. References 122 7.1. Informative References 124 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 125 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 126 May 2008. 128 7.2. Normative References 130 [RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol 131 Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC 132 5384, November 2008. 134 Author's Address 136 Stig Venaas 137 Cisco Systems 138 Tasman Drive 139 San Jose, CA 95134 140 USA 142 Email: stig@cisco.com