GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7500

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) R. Housley, Ed. Request for Comments: 7500 Vigil Security Category: Informational O. Kolkman, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Internet Society

                                                            April 2015
                    Principles for Operation of
       Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries

Abstract

 This document provides principles for the operation of Internet
 Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
 and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
 provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
 Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
 publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7500.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 1] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. Principles for the Operation of IANA Registries .................3
 3. Discussion ......................................................4
    3.1. Ensuring Uniqueness, Stability, and Predictability .........4
    3.2. Public .....................................................4
    3.3. Open and Transparent .......................................4
    3.4. Accountable ................................................5
 4. Security Considerations .........................................5
 5. Informative References ..........................................6
 IAB Members at the Time of Approval ................................7
 Contributors and Acknowledgements ..................................7
 Authors' Addresses .................................................7

1. Introduction

 The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its predecessors have
 traditionally separated the publication of protocol specifications in
 immutable Request for Comments (RFCs) and the registries containing
 protocol parameters.  Traditionally, the registries are maintained by
 a set of functions known collectively as the Internet Assigned
 Numbers Authority (IANA).  Dating back to the earliest days of the
 Internet, specification publication and the registry operations were
 tightly coupled: Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute
 (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC) was responsible
 for both RFC publication and IANA registry operation.  This tight
 coupling had advantages, but it was never a requirement.  Indeed,
 today the RFC Editor and IANA registry operation are provided by
 different entities.
 Internet registries are critical to the operation of the Internet,
 because they provide a definitive record of the value and meaning of
 identifiers that protocols use when communicating with each other.
 Almost every Internet protocol makes use of registries in some form.
 At the time of writing, the IANA maintains more than two thousand
 protocol parameter registries.
 Internet registries hold protocol identifiers consisting of constants
 and other well-known values used by Internet protocols.  These values
 can be numbers, strings, addresses, and so on.  They are uniquely
 assigned for one particular purpose or use.  Identifiers can be
 maintained in a central list (such as a list of cryptographic
 algorithms) or they can be hierarchically allocated and assigned by
 separate entities at different points in the hierarchy (such as IP
 addresses and domain names).  To maximize trust and usefulness of the
 IANA registries, the principles in this document should be taken into
 consideration for centralized registries as well as hierarchically

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 2] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

 delegated registries.  In hierarchically delegated registries,
 entries nearest to top level have broad scope, but lower-level
 entries have narrow scope.   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
 will encourage support for these principles in all delegations of
 Internet identifiers.
 The registry system is built on trust and mutual cooperation.  The
 use of the registries is voluntary and is not enforced by mandates or
 certification policies.  While the use of registries is voluntary, it
 is noted that the success of the Internet creates enormous pressure
 to use Internet protocols and the identifier registries associated
 with them.
 This document provides principles for the operation of IANA
 registries, ensuring that protocol identifiers have consistent
 meanings and interpretations across all implementations and
 deployments, and thus providing the necessary trust in the IANA
 registries.

2. Principles for the Operation of IANA Registries

 The following key principles underscore the successful functioning of
 the IANA registries, and they provide a foundation for trust in those
 registries:
 Ensure Uniqueness:  The same protocol identifier must not be used for
    more than one purpose.
 Stable:  Protocol identifier assignment must be lasting.
 Predictable:  The process for making assignments must not include
    unexpected steps.
 Public:  The protocol identifiers must be made available in well-
    known locations in a manner that makes them freely available to
    everyone.
 Open:  The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier
    assignment and registration must be open to all interested
    parties.
 Transparent:  The protocol registries and their associated policies
    should be developed in a transparent manner.
 Accountable:  Registry policy development and registry operations
    need to be accountable to the affected community.

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 3] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

3. Discussion

 The principles discussed in Section 2 provide trust and confidence in
 the IANA registries.  This section expands on these principles.

3.1. Ensuring Uniqueness, Stability, and Predictability

 Protocol identifier assignment and registration must be unique,
 stable, and predictable.  Developers, vendors, customers, and users
 depend on the registries for unique protocol identifiers that are
 assigned in a stable and predictable manner.
 A protocol identifier may only be reassigned for a different purpose
 after due consideration of the impact of such a reassignment, and if
 possible, with the consent of the original assignee.
 Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those
 involving a designated expert [RFC5226], a predictable process does
 not require completion in a predetermined number of days.  Rather, it
 means that no unexpected steps are introduced in the process of
 making an assignment.

3.2. Public

 Once assigned, the protocol identifiers must be made available in a
 manner that makes them freely available to everyone without
 restrictions.  The use of a consistent publication location builds
 confidence in the registry.  This does not mean that the publication
 location can never change, but it does mean that it must change
 infrequently and only after adequate prior notice.

3.3. Open and Transparent

 The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier assignment
 and registration must be open to all interested parties and operate
 in a transparent manner.
 When a registry is established, a policy is set for the addition of
 new entries and the updating of existing entries.  While making
 additions and modifications, the registry operator may expose
 instances where policies lack clarity.  When this occurs, the
 registry operator should provide helpful feedback to allow those
 policies to be improved.  In addition, the registry operator not
 being involved in establishing registry policy avoids the risks
 associated with (perceptions of) favoritism and unfairness.

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 4] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

 Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those
 involving a designated expert [RFC5226], the recommendations by
 designated experts must be visible to the public to the maximum
 extent possible and subject to challenge or appeal.

3.4. Accountable

 The process that sets the policy for IANA registries and the
 operation of the registries must be accountable to the parties that
 rely on the protocol identifiers.  Oversight is needed to ensure
 these are properly serving the affected community.
 In practice, accountability mechanisms for the registry operator may
 be defined by contract, memoranda of understanding, or service level
 agreements (SLAs).  An oversight body uses these mechanisms to ensure
 that the registry operator is meeting the needs of the affected
 community.  The oversight body is held accountable to the affected
 community by vastly different mechanisms, for instance recall and
 appeal processes.
 For protocol parameters [RFC6220], the general oversight of the IANA
 function is performed by the IAB as a chartered responsibility from
 [RFC2850].  In addition, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
 (IAOC), a body responsible for IETF administrative and financial
 matters [BCP101], maintains an SLA with the current registry
 operator, the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
 (ICANN), thereby specifying the operational requirements with respect
 to the coordination, maintenance, and publication of the protocol
 parameter registries.  Both the IAB and the IAOC are accountable to
 the larger Internet community and are being held accountable through
 the IETF Nomcom process [BCP10].
 For the Internet Number Registries [RFC7249], oversight is performed
 by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) as described RFC 7020
 [RFC7020].  The RIRs are member-based organizations, and they are
 accountable to the affected community by elected governance boards.
 Furthermore, per agreement between the RIRs and ICANN, the policy
 development for the global IANA number registries is coordinated by a
 community-elected number council and subject to process review before
 ratification by the ICANN Board of Trustees [ASOMOU].

4. Security Considerations

 Internet Registries are critical to elements of Internet security.
 The principles described in this document are necessary for the
 Internet community to place trust in the IANA registries.

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 5] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

5. Informative References

 [ASOMOU]   ICANN, "ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU",
            October 2004,
            <http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>.
 [BCP10]    Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
            Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
            Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
            January 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10>.
 [BCP101]   Austein, R., Ed., and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
            IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
            4071, April 2005.
            Carpenter, B., Ed., and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
            IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, January 2006.
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp101>
 [RFC2850]  Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
            "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP
            39, RFC 2850, May 2000,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
 [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
            Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
            Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
 [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
            May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
 [RFC6220]  McPherson, D., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., Klensin, J., Ed.,
            Huston, G., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board,
            "Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter
            Registry Operators", RFC 6220, April 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6220>.
 [RFC7020]  Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
            Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.
 [RFC7249]  Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May
            2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7249>.

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 6] RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015

IAB Members at the Time of Approval

 Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
 Mary Barnes
 Marc Blanchet
 Joel Halpern
 Ted Hardie
 Joe Hildebrand
 Russ Housley
 Eliot Lear
 Xing Li
 Erik Nordmark
 Andrew Sullivan
 Dave Thaler
 Brian Trammell

Contributors and Acknowledgements

 This text has been developed within the IAB IANA Evolution Program.
 The ideas and many text fragments, and corrections came from or were
 inspired on comments from: Bernard Aboba, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jari Arkko,
 Marcelo Bagnulo, Mark Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, David Conrad, Steve
 Crocker, John Curran, Alissa Cooper, Leslie Daigle, Elise Gerich,
 John Klensin, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Eliot Lear, Danny McPherson,
 George Michaelson, Thomas Narten, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew
 Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Brian Trammell, and Greg Wood.  Further
 inspiration and input was drawn from various meetings with IETF and
 other Internet community (RIRs, ISOC, W3C, IETF, and IAB) leadership.
 Please do not assume those acknowledged endorse the resulting text.

Authors' Addresses

 Russ Housley
 918 Spring Knoll Drive
 Herndon, VA 20170
 USA
 EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
 Olaf Kolkman
 Science Park 400
 Amsterdam  1098 XH
 The Netherlands
 EMail: kolkman@isoc.org

Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 7]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7500.txt · Last modified: 2015/04/06 20:36 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki