| Rfc | 6220 |
|---|
| Title | Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry
Operators |
|---|
| Author | D. McPherson, Ed., O. Kolkman, Ed., J. Klensin, Ed., G.
Huston, Ed., Internet Architecture Board |
|---|
| Date | April 2011 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT,
HTML |
|---|
| Obsoleted by | RFC8722 |
|---|
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|---|
|
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) D. McPherson, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6220 O. Kolkman, Ed.
Category: Informational J. Klensin, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Huston, Ed.
April 2011
Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol
Parameter Registry Operators
Abstract
Many Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocols make use of
commonly defined values that are passed in messages or packets. To
ensure consistent interpretation of these values between independent
implementations, there is a need to ensure that the values and
associated semantic intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses
registry functions to record assigned protocol parameter values and
their associated semantic intentions. For each IETF protocol
parameter, it is current practice for the IETF to delegate the role
of Protocol Parameter Registry Operator to a nominated entity. This
document provides a description of, and the requirements for, these
delegated functions.
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. 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/rfc6220.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Table of Contents
1. Overview ........................................................2
2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF
Protocol Parameter Registries ...................................3
2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role ..................4
2.2. IAB Role ...................................................7
2.3. IESG Role ..................................................7
2.4. Role of the IETF Trust .....................................8
2.5. Role of the IAOC ...........................................8
3. Miscellaneous Considerations ....................................8
4. Security Considerations .........................................9
5. IANA Considerations .............................................9
6. Informative References ..........................................9
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................10
8. IAB Members ....................................................10
1. Overview
Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are
passed within messages or packets. To ensure consistent
interpretation of these values between independent implementations,
there is a need to ensure that the values and associated semantic
intent are uniquely defined. The IETF uses registries to record each
of the possible values of a protocol parameter and their associated
semantic intent. These registries, their registration policy, and
the layout of their content are defined in the so-called "IANA
Considerations" sections of IETF documents.
The organizational separation between the IETF and its Registry
Operators parallels ones that are fairly common among standards
development organizations (SDOs) although less common among
technology consortia and similar bodies. These functions have been
separated into different organizations for several reasons. They
include dealing with administrative issues, addressing concerns about
maintaining an adequate distance between basic policy and specific
allocations, and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest that
might arise from commercial or organizational relationships. For
example, most ISO and ISO/IEC JTC1 standards that require
registration activities specify a Registration Authority (RA) or
Maintenance Agency (MA) that, in turn, control the actual
registration decisions. The databases of what is registered for each
standard may then be maintained by a secretariat or database function
associated with the RA or MA or, less frequently, by the secretariat
of the body that created and maintains the standard itself.
This structural separation of roles exists within several places in
the IETF framework (e.g., the RFC Editor function). The Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), on behalf of the IETF, has the
responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the
Protocol Registry Operator role. This responsibility includes the
selection and management of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator,
as well as management of the parameter registration process and the
guidelines for parameter allocation.
As with other SDOs, although it may delegate authority for some
specific decisions, the IETF asserts authority and responsibility for
the management of all of its protocol parameters and their
registries, even while it generally remains isolated from the
selection of particular values once a registration is approved. This
document describes the function of these registries as they apply to
individual protocol parameters defined by the IETF Internet Standards
Process [RFC2026] to allow for an orderly implementation by the
Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), and others as
needed, under guidance from the IAB.
Below we provide a description of the requirements for these
delegated functions, which the IETF traditionally refers to as the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function.
2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter
Registries
The IETF's longstanding practice is to outsource the management and
implementation of some important functions (e.g., [RFC5620]). The
protocol parameter registry function falls into this category of
outsourced functions, and what follows here is the description of the
roles and responsibilities with respect to the registration of IETF
protocol parameters.
Specifically, this document describes the operation and role of a
delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, to be selected
and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
[RFC4071]. While there is generally a single Protocol Parameter
Registry Operator, additional Operators may be selected to implement
specific registries, and that has been done occasionally. Having a
single Operator facilitates coordination among registries, even those
that are not obviously related, and also makes it easier to have
consistency of formats and registry structure, which aids users of
the registries and assists with quality control.
Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and
deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a
new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication
algorithm for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
protocols, that role is provided by a delegated Protocol Parameter
Registry Operator. For any particular protocol parameter there is a
single delegated Registry Operator.
2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role
The IETF Protocol Parameter Registry function is undertaken under the
auspices of the Internet Architecture Board.
The roles of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator are as follows:
o Review and Advise
* A Registry Operator may be requested to review Internet-Drafts
that are being considered by the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG), with the objective of offering advice to the IESG
regarding the contents of the "IANA Considerations" section,
whether such a section, when required, is clear in terms of
direction to the Registry Operator, and whether the section is
consistent with the current published Registry Operator
guidelines.
o Registry
* To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments.
* The delegated Registry Operator registers values for Internet
protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and
procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft, and full
Internet Standards, Best Current Practice documents, and other
RFCs that require protocol parameter assignment.
If values for Internet protocol parameters were not specified, or
in case of ambiguity, the Registry Operator will continue to
assign and register only those protocol parameters that have
already been delegated to the Operator, following past and
current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise directed
in terms of operating practice by the IESG. In the case of
ambiguity, the Registry Operator is expected to identify the
ambiguity to the IAB or IESG as appropriate and either suggest
better text or ask the appropriate parties for clarification.
* For each protocol parameter, the associated registry includes:
+ a reference to the RFC document that describes the parameter
and the associated "IANA Considerations" concerning the
parameter, and
+ for each registration of a protocol parameter value, the source
of the registration and the date of the registration, if the
date of registration is known, and
+ any other information specified as being included in the
registration data in the RFC document that describes the
parameter.
+ If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the Registry
Operator will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively
from the IESG. Where appropriate, the IESG will appoint an
expert to advise the Registry Operator.
* The Registry Operator will work with the IETF to develop any
missing criteria and procedures over time, which the Registry
Operator will adopt when so instructed by the IESG.
* Unless special circumstances apply to subsets of the data and
specific rules are established by IETF consensus, each protocol
parameter registry operates as a public registry, and the
contents of the registry are openly available to the public,
on-line and free of charge.
* The Registry Operator assigns protocol parameter values in
accordance with the policy associated with the protocol
parameter, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review"
[RFC5226].
o Mailing Lists
* The Registry Operator maintains public mailing lists as specified
in IANA Considerations [RFC5226]. Such lists are designated for
the purpose of review of assignment proposals in conjunction with
a designated expert review function. In addition, each Protocol
Parameter Registry Operator should maintain a mailing list that
enables the registry staff of the Registry Operator to be
contacted by email.
o Liaison Activity
* The Registry Operator will nominate a liaison point of contact.
The Registry Operator, through this liaison, may be requested to
provide advice to the IESG on IETF protocol parameters as well as
the "IANA Considerations" section of each Internet-Draft that is
being reviewed for publication as an RFC. Where appropriate the
IESG will appoint an expert to advise the Registry Operator.
o Reporting
* The Registry Operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB
concerning the operational performance of the registry function.
As an example of the requirements for such reports, the reader is
referred to a supplement [IAOC_SUPP] to the "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC2860] that provides service level
agreement (SLA) guidelines under which ICANN, the current
protocol parameter registry, must operate.
* At the request of the chair of the IETF, IAB, or IAOC, the
Registry Operator will undertake periodic reports to IETF Plenary
meetings concerning the status of the registry function.
* The Registry Operator will publish an annual report describing
the status of the function and a summary of performance
indicators.
o Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator
* All assigned values are to be published and made available free
of any charges.
* The assignment values may be redistributed without modification.
* Any intellectual property rights of the IETF protocol parameter
assignment information, including the IETF protocol parameter
registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust
[RFC4748].
2.2. IAB Role
An Operator of an IETF protocol parameter registry undertakes the
role as a delegated function under the authority of the IAB.
The IAB has the responsibility to review the current description of
the registry function from time to time and direct the Registry
Operator to adopt amendments relating to its role and mode of
operation according to the best interests of the IETF and the
Internet community in general.
The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to
undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter Registry
Operator for each IETF protocol parameter. Specifically, the IAB
defines the role and requirements for the desired functions. The
IAOC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor, and once
under agreement, managing the various aspects of the relationships
with that vendor. To be clear, the IAB is in the deciding role
(e.g., for appointment and termination), but must work in close
consultation with the IAOC.
The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions
of this delegated role. Such terms and conditions should ensure that
the registry operates in a manner that is fully conformant to the
functions described in this document. In addition, such terms and
conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF
with respect to the registry contents and maintenance.
2.3. IESG Role
The IESG is responsible for the technical direction regarding entries
into IETF protocol parameter registries and maintaining the policies
by which such technical directions are given. Technical direction
itself is provided through the adoption of directives within the
"IANA Considerations" section of IETF Stream RFCs or through stand-
alone "IANA Considerations" RFCs.
The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts that are offered for
publication as IETF Stream RFCs [RFC4844] include "IANA
Considerations" sections when needed, and that "IANA Considerations"
sections conform to the current published guidelines.
Since technical assessment is not generally a responsibility of the
Registry Operator, as part of providing the technical direction the
IESG is responsible for identifying the technical experts that are
required to, where appropriate, review registration requests or
resolve open technical questions that relate to the registration of
parameters.
At its discretion, the IESG will organize the liaison activities with
the Registry Operator's liaison point of contact so as to facilitate
clear communications and effective operation of the registry
function.
2.4. Role of the IETF Trust
The IETF Trust [RFC4748] was formed to act as the administrative
custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights
relating to the IETF Standards Process, a function that had
previously been performed by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI).
Any intellectual property rights of IETF protocol parameter
assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and
all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf
of the IETF.
The IETF Trust may make such regulations as appropriate for the
redistribution of assignment values and registry publications.
2.5. Role of the IAOC
The IAOC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor in a
manner of their choosing, based on IAB consultation, and for managing
the various aspects of the relationships with that vendor.
In addition, the IAOC has the responsibility to ensure long-term
access, stability, and uniqueness across all such registries. This
responsibility is of particular significance in the event that a
relation with a Protocol Parameter Registry Operator is terminated.
3. Miscellaneous Considerations
While this document has focused on the creation of protocols by the
IETF, the requirements provided are generically applicable to the
extended IETF community as well (e.g., Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)).
The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF
Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies by which
such technical directions are given. The IESG is responsible, as
part of the document approval process associated with the IETF Stream
RFCs [RFC4844], for "IANA Considerations" verification. For the
other RFC streams, the approval bodies are responsible for verifying
that the documents include "IANA Considerations" sections when
needed, and that "IANA Considerations" sections conform to the
current published guidelines. In the case that IANA considerations
in non-IETF document streams lead to a dispute, the IAB makes the
final decision.
This document talks about "Registry Operator" (singular), and while
there are stability and economy-of-scale advantages for one single
Operator, this document does not exclude having different Operators
for different protocol registries when justified by the
circumstances.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not propose any new protocols and does not
introduce any new security considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no direct IANA actions in terms of the
creation or operation of a protocol parameter registry. However,
this document does define the roles and responsibilities of various
bodies who are responsible for, and associated with, the operation of
protocol parameter registration functions for the IETF.
6. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[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.
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed., and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, April 2005.
[RFC4748] Bradner, S., Ed., "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF
Trust", RFC 4748, October 2006.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The
RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5620] Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version
1)", RFC 5620, August 2009.
[IAOC_SUPP] ICANN/IANA-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement,
<http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
IETF-ICANN_Supplemental_Agreement.pdf>.
7. Acknowledgements
This document is adapted from "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], and has been modified to
include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights and the
roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF Protocol Parameter
Registry function.
The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided
by reviewers of drafts of this document, including Scott Bradner,
Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Adrian Farrel, Alfred Hoenes, Paul
Hoffman, Alexey Melnikov, Thomas Narten, and Ray Pelletier.
8. IAB Members
Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
Marcelo Bagnulo
Ross Callon
Spencer Dawkins
Russ Housley
John Klensin
Olaf Kolkman
Danny McPherson
Jon Peterson
Andrei Robachevsky
Dave Thaler
Hannes Tschofenig
Authors' Addresses
Danny McPherson, Editor
Verisign, Inc.
EMail: dmcpherson@verisign.com
Olaf M. Kolkman, Editor
NLnet Labs
EMail: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl
John C Klensin, Editor
EMail: john+ietf@jck.com
Geoff Huston, Editor
APNIC
EMail: gih@apnic.net
Internet Architecture Board
EMail: iab@iab.org