GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5237

Network Working Group J. Arkko Request for Comments: 5237 Ericsson BCP: 37 S. Bradner Updates: 2780 Harvard University Category: Best Current Practice February 2008

         IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 This document revises the IANA guidelines for allocating new Protocol
 field values in IPv4 header.  It modifies the rules specified in RFC
 2780 by removing the Expert Review option.  The change will also
 affect the allocation of Next Header field values in IPv6.

1. Introduction

 This document revises the IANA guidelines [RFC2780] for allocating
 new Protocol field values in IPv4 header [RFC0791].  The change will
 also be applicable for IPv6, as the IANA guidelines for IPv6 Next
 Header values [RFC2460] allocation refer to the IPv4 guidelines.
 Previously, RFC 2780 allowed such allocations to happen through IESG
 Approval, Standards action, or Expert Review processes
 [RFC2780][RFC2434].  The Expert Review process was specified to be
 used only in the case where a non-disclosure agreement was involved:
    IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following
    an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process.  The
    Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases
    where non-disclosure information is involved.  In these cases the
    expert(s) should be designated by the IESG.
 The need for the Standards Action rule is obvious as the IETF keeps
 developing new protocols.  It is equally obvious that there is a need
 to allow experimental allocations in this space; see RFC 4727
 [RFC4727] for an example.  Similarly, there are cases when it makes
 sense to allocate values out of this space for other non-Standards
 Track or non-IETF uses.  However, the size of the field is 256
 values, and 55% of these were in use at the time this document was
 written.  As a result, a sanity check is needed to ensure that

Arkko & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 5237 Protocol Field IANA Rules February 2008

 allocations are not made needlessly.  RFC 2780 specifies the IESG
 Approval rule to take care of these sanity checks for the non-
 Standards Track cases.  The judgment call can take into account the
 existence of a stable protocol specification, constituency that wants
 to use it, need to avoid duplicated allocations for the same purpose,
 whether protocol number allocation is the right solution for this
 problem as opposed to, say, a TCP port, and so on.
 However, we now believe that the non-disclosure agreement option is
 not appropriate for allocations in this space.  Traditionally, non-
 disclosure agreements have been used by the IANA when a company was
 developing a proprietary protocol and did not want to disclose new
 areas of research or future products.  The protocol space is limited
 enough that we no longer believe that it is reasonable to use the
 resource for such proprietary protocols.  Thus, we believe that
 allocations should only be made using the IESG Approval or Standards
 Action processes when there are public specifications that can be
 reviewed.
 As a result, this document revises the RFC 2780 rules by removing the
 option for Expert Review for the IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header
 fields.  This document takes no position on the allocation of other
 parameters with non-disclosure agreements, as those parameters may
 require different policies.

2. IANA Considerations

 This document replaces the RFC 2780 Section 4.3 rule [RFC2780] with
 the following:
    IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following
    an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
 This document also makes an implicit change to the rule for the IPv6
 Next Header field in Section 5.3 of RFC 2780.  That rule refers to
 the rule in Section 4.3 of the same RFC.  From now on, this reference
 should be understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without
 the Expert Review option.

3. Security Considerations

 This specification does not change the security properties of the
 affected protocols.

Arkko & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 5237 Protocol Field IANA Rules February 2008

4. Acknowledgments

 Issues with the original RFC 2780 rules were uncovered in discussions
 of the IETF-IANA team.  The team also provided background information
 on the practical difficulties encountered with non-disclosure
 agreements.  The authors would like to thank Thomas Narten, Bill
 Fenner, and Michelle Cotton in particular.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

 [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
            September 1981.
 [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
            October 1998.
 [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
            (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
 [RFC2780]  Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
            Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
            BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

5.2. Informative References

 [RFC4727]  Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
            ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.

Arkko & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 5237 Protocol Field IANA Rules February 2008

Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2780

 Section 4.3 from RFC 2780 has been changed from:
    IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following
    an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process.  The
    Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases
    where non-disclosure information is involved.  In these cases the
    expert(s) should be designated by the IESG.
 to:
    IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following
    an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
 In addition, RFC 2780 Section 5.3 reference to IPv4 rules should be
 understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without the
 Expert Review option.

Authors' Addresses

 Jari Arkko
 Ericsson
 Jorvas  02420
 Finland
 EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
 Scott Bradner
 Harvard University
 Cambridge, MA  02138
 US
 Phone: +1 617 495 3864
 EMail: sob@harvard.edu

Arkko & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 5237 Protocol Field IANA Rules February 2008

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Arkko & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 5]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5237.txt · Last modified: 2008/02/27 23:09 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki