Independent Submission A. Farrel
Request for Comments: 8726 Independent Submissions Editor
Category: Informational November 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
How Requests for IANA Action Will Be Handled on the Independent Stream
Abstract
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains registries
to track code points used by protocols such as those defined by the
IETF and documented in RFCs developed on the IETF Stream.
The Independent Submission Stream is another source of documents that
can be published as RFCs. This stream is under the care of the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).
This document complements RFC 4846 by providing a description of how
the ISE currently handles documents in the Independent Submission
Stream that request actions from IANA. Nothing in this document
changes existing IANA registries or their allocation policies, nor
does it change any previously documented processes.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8726.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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. Introduction
2. Allocations from Existing Registries
3. Changing Policies of Existing Registries
4. Creating New IANA Registries
5. Assigning Designated Experts
6. Transfer of Control
7. IANA Considerations
8. Security Considerations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains registries
to track code points used by protocols such as those defined by the
IETF and documented in RFCs developed on the IETF Stream. A full
list of registries and code points can be found at
https://www.iana.org/protocols.
Requests may be made to IANA for actions to create registries or to
allocate code points from existing registries. Procedures for these
operations are described in [RFC8126].
Many requests for IANA action are included in documents that are
progressed for publication as RFCs. RFCs may be sourced from within
the IETF (on the IETF Stream) but may also be sourced from other
streams, including the Independent Submission Stream (the Independent
Stream), as described in [RFC4846]. The Independent Stream is under
the care of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).
This document complements [RFC4846] by providing a description of how
the ISE currently handles documents in the Independent Stream that
request actions from IANA. Nothing in this document changes existing
IANA registries or their allocation policies, nor does it change any
previously documented processes.
If a case arises that is not precisely covered by this document, the
ISE may discuss a solution with the interested parties, including
IANA, the IESG, the stream managers for other streams, and the
authors of an Independent Submission that requests IANA action.
2. Allocations from Existing Registries
Each IANA registry is governed by an allocation policy -- the rules
that IANA applies to determine which code points can be allocated and
under what circumstances. These policies are described in [RFC8126].
Documents proceeding from the Independent Stream will always follow
the assignment policies defined for the registries from which they
request allocations. Similarly, all code point assignments are
subject to the oversight of any designated expert (DE) appointed for
the registry.
It should be noted that documents on the Independent Stream can never
result in Standards Track RFCs and Independent Stream documents are
never subject to IETF review. Thus, a registry whose policy is "IETF
Review" or "Standards Action" [RFC8126] is not available to
Independent Stream documents.
3. Changing Policies of Existing Registries
From time to time, a decision is made to change the allocation policy
for a registry. Such changes are normally only made using the
allocation policy of the registry itself and usually require
documentation from the same stream that created the registry.
Independent Stream RFCs will not seek to change the allocation
policies of any registries except those created by documents from the
Independent Stream. The list of such registries is itself very
limited (see Section 4).
4. Creating New IANA Registries
Sometimes registries are needed to track a new set of code points for
a new protocol or an extension to an existing protocol.
In general, documents on the Independent Stream cannot request the
creation of a new IANA registry.
The only exception to this rule is when a document to be published in
the Independent Submission Stream requests the allocation of a code
point from an existing registry with the allocation policy
Specification Required, Expert Review, RFC Required, or First Come
First Served. Then the document to be published may also need to
create a registry that is tied to that specific code point and is
used for interpreting a sub-code.
Consider, for example, the "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
Schemes" registry [URL-URIschemes]. From time to time, a URI scheme
may need a registry of associated parameters; for example, consider
the tel URI scheme that has a register of parameters called the "tel
URI Parameters" [URL-telURI].
Such examples are rare and only exist to support the allocation from
the base registry. In such cases, where there is an appointed DE for
the existing base registry, the assignment of the individual code
point from the existing base registry and the creation of the new
registry can only happen if the DE approves both actions.
There are several further constraints on the new registry:
* The allocation policy for the new registry may only be First Come
First Served, RFC Required, Experimental, or Private Use. In
particular, no registry may be created that would require IETF
action to achieve a future code point allocation. See Section 5
for an explanation of why the application of Specification
Required and Expert Review are not acceptable policies for any
registry created from a document in the Independent Stream.
* If the allocation policy for the new registry is First Come First
Served, the document must contain a brief statement and
explanation of the expected arrival rate of new registrations over
time.
* The new registry must contain a clear statement of the escalation
process for any issues that arise with the registry. A model for
this statement is as follows:
| This registry was created by [RFCXXXX], which was published on the
| Independent Submission Stream. Any issues that arise with the
| management of this registry will be resolved by IANA in
| consultation with the Independent Submissions Editor.
* The IESG will be invited to provide its opinions about the
advisability of the creation of any new registries during its
conflict review of the document [RFC5742], and the ISE will give
full consideration to such opinions.
Authors of Independent Submission Stream documents should consider
the most appropriate venue to host such registries, taking into
account where the expertise for managing and reviewing registry
assignments may be found. In some cases, this may mean that
registries are hosted by organizations other than IANA.
5. Assigning Designated Experts
Some IANA allocation policies (specifically, Specification Required
and Expert Review) utilize the review of a DE. The procedures
applicable to the appointment and actions of a DE are described in
Section 5 of [RFC8126].
When a DE is appointed, the position must be maintained and supported
by whoever designated the DE in the first place. That is, someone
must appoint replacement DEs if necessary, and someone must provide a
backstop in case the appointed DEs are unresponsive.
The ISE will not appoint a DE. That means that no subregistry
created for Independent Stream documents will require the review of a
DE. That means that no new subregistry can be created that uses the
Specification Required or Expert Review policies.
6. Transfer of Control
Very rarely, it may be desirable to transfer "ownership" of an IANA
registry from the Independent Stream to the IETF Stream. This might
happen, for example, if a protocol was originally documented in the
Independent Stream but has been adopted for work and standardization
in the IETF. Such a transfer may require an IETF Stream RFC to act
as the base reference for the registry and will require discussion
and agreement with the ISE.
Ownership of a registry will not be transferred from the IETF Stream
to the Independent Stream.
7. IANA Considerations
This document is all about IANA actions but makes no request for IANA
action.
8. Security Considerations
There are no direct security considerations arising from this
document. It may be noted that some IANA registries relate to
security protocols, and the stability and proper management of those
registries contribute to the stability of the protocols themselves.
That is a benefit for the security of the Internet and the users of
the Internet.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4846] Klensin, J., Ed. and D. Thaler, Ed., "Independent
Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4846, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4846>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
9.2. Informative References
[URL-telURI]
"tel URI Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/tel-uri-parameters>.
[URL-URIschemes]
"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Subramanian Moonesamy, Craig Partridge,
Michelle Cotton, Andrew Malis, Warren Kumari, Ned Freed, Rich Salz,
Michael Richardson, Colin Perkins, Stephen Farrell, Barry Leiba, and
Benjamin Kaduk for suggestions and advice.
Author's Address
Adrian Farrel
Independent Submissions Editor