GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:bcp:bcp59

Network Working Group M. Rose Request for Comments: 3349 Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. BCP: 59 July 2002 Category: Best Current Practice

A Transient Prefix for Identifying Profiles under Development by the
       Working Groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force

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.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 As a part of their deliverables, working groups of the IETF may
 develop BEEP profiles.  During the development process, it is
 desirable to assign a transient identifier to each profile.  If the
 profile is subsequently published as an RFC, then a permanent
 identifier is subsequently assigned by the IANA.

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 3349 Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles July 2002

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 2.  Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 B.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 3349 Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles July 2002

1. Introduction

 Each BEEP profile [1] is identified by a URI [2].  The BEEP
 specification uses URIs to identify a BEEP profile both:
 o  statically, when a profile is formally defined (RFC 3080's Section
    5.1); and,
 o  dynamically, during channel management (RFC 3080's Section 2.3.1).
 If the BEEP profile appears on the standards-track [3], then the IANA
 is responsible for assigning the URI associated with the BEEP
 profile.  Otherwise, the entity specifying the BEEP profile is free
 to assign a URI under its administration to the profile.
 If a working group of the IETF is developing a BEEP profile, then,
 during the development process, it is desirable to use a transient
 identifier for the profile.  Further, it is desirable that the
 transient identifier be associated with the working group.
 This memo defines the practice for making such an assignment.  Note
 that this practice does not apply to activities outside of working
 groups -- anyone able to assign a URL is capable of defining a URI
 for the purposes of identifying the BEEP profiles that they develop.

2. Practice

 When a working group is formed, the IETF secretariat assigns a brief
 mnemonic prefix to the working group, e.g., "provreg" or "sacred".
 When a working group begins development of a document which specifies
 a BEEP profile, the working group chair assigns a transient
 identifier of the form "http://iana.org/beep/transient/XXX/YYY" where
 "XXX" is the working group's mnemonic and "YYY" is a unique string.
 Although the resulting URI must conform to the URI syntax, the "YYY"
 portion is otherwise arbitrary.  For example, it may contain a sub-
 hierarchy (e.g., "epp/1.0").
 For example,
     http://iana.org/beep/transient/provreg/epp/1.0
     http://iana.org/beep/transient/sacred/pdm
 might be assigned by the chairs of the "provreg" and "sacred" working
 groups, respectively.
 Following this, the working group chair completes a BEEP profile
 registration template, and submits this information to the IANA.

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 3349 Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles July 2002

 Note that although the IETF hasn't established a practice with
 respect to the use of capitalization in URLs employed for namespace
 purposes, the W3C has a lowercase-only policy.  Working group chairs
 are encouraged to consider this when making assignments.

3. Security Considerations

 This document describes an administrative convention and raises no
 additional security considerations.  Of course, each BEEP-based
 protocol has its own set of security considerations, which should be
 described in the relevant specification.

References

 [1]  Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
      3080, March 2001.
 [2]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
      Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.
 [3]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
      IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 3349 Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles July 2002

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Dan Kohn and
 Bob Wyman.

Appendix B. IANA Considerations

 The IANA maintains a registry of transient identifiers used for BEEP
 profiles under development in the IETF, using the profile
 registration template defined in Section 5.1 of [1].
 Note that unlike the registration procedures defined in Appendix B of
 [1], the working group chair (instead of the IESG) is responsible for
 authorizing the registration.

Author's Address

 Marshall T. Rose
 Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
 POB 255268
 Sacramento, CA  95865-5268
 US
 Phone: +1 916 483 8878
 EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 3349 Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles July 2002

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Rose Best Current Practice [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/bcp/bcp59.txt · Last modified: 2002/07/30 20:20 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki