| Rfc | 5237 |
|---|
| Title | IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field |
|---|
| Author | J. Arkko, S.
Bradner |
|---|
| Date | February 2008 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Updates | RFC2780 |
|---|
| Also | BCP0037 |
|---|
| Status: | BEST CURRENT PRACTICE |
|---|
|
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
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.
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.
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
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.