GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3818

Network Working Group V. Schryver Request for Comments: 3818 Rhyolite Software BCP: 88 June 2004 Category: Best Current Practice

     IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

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 (2004).

Abstract

 The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Extensions working
 group (pppext) includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's
 most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against
 further enhancements of questionable value."  In support of that
 charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers
 will no longer be "first come first served."

Introduction

 The Point-to-Point protocol (PPP, RFC 1661 [1]) is a mature protocol
 with a large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other
 extensions.  The main protocol as well as its extensions involve many
 name spaces in which values must be assigned.
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ppp-numbers contains a list of the
 address spaces and their current assignments.
 Historically, initial values in new name spaces have often been
 chosen in the RFCs creating the name spaces.  The IANA made
 subsequent assignments with a "First Come First Served" policy.  This
 memo changes that policy for some PPP address spaces.
 Most of the PPP names spaces are quiescent, but some continue to
 attract proposed extensions.  Extensions of PPP have been defined in
 RFCs that are "Informational" and so are not subject to review.
 These extensions usually require values assigned in one or more of
 the PPP name spaces.  Making these allocations require "IETF
 Consensus" will ensure that proposals are reviewed.

Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004

Terminology

 The terms "name space", "assigned value", and "registration" are used
 here with the meanings defined in BCP 26 [2].  The policies "First
 Come First Served" and "IETF Consensus" used here also have the
 meanings defined in BCP 26.

IANA Considerations for PPP

 IETF Consensus, usually through the Point-to-Point Protocol
 Extensions working group (pppext), is required for assigning new
 values in the following address spaces:
              PPP DLL PROTOCOL NUMBERS
              PPP LCP AND IPCP CODES
              PPP LCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
              PPP CCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
              PPP CHAP AUTHENTICATION ALGORITHMS
              PPP LCP FCS-ALTERNATIVES
              PPP MULTILINK ENDPOINT DISCRIMINATOR CLASS
              PPP LCP CALLBACK OPERATION FIELDS
              PPP BRIDGING CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
              PPP BRIDGING MAC TYPES
              PPP BRIDGING SPANNING TREE
              PPP IPCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
              PPP IPV6CP CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
              PPP IP-Compression-Protocol Types

Security Considerations

 This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.

Normative References

 [1] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
     RFC 1661, July 1994.
 [2] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
     Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004

Author's Address

 Vernon Schryver
 Rhyolite Software
 2482 Lee Hill Drive
 Boulder, Colorado 80302
 EMail: vjs@rhyolite.com

Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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 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.

Acknowledgement

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

Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 4]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3818.txt · Last modified: 2004/06/09 23:37 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki