Internet DRAFT - draft-ise-iana-policy
draft-ise-iana-policy
Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Independent Submissions Editor
Intended status: Informational September 23, 2019
Expires: March 26, 2020
How Requests for IANA Action Will be Handled on the Independent Stream
draft-ise-iana-policy-03
Abstract
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains registries
to track codepoints used by protocols such as those defined by the
IETF and documented in RFCs developed on the IETF Stream.
The Independent Submissions 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 Submissions
Stream that request actions from the 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 Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Farrel Expires March 26, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA and the Independent Stream September 2019
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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Allocations from Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Changing Policies of Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Creating New IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Assigning Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Transfer of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains registries
to track codepoints 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 Submissions 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 the IANA. Nothing in this document changes
existing IANA registries or their allocation policies, nor does it
change any previously documented processes.
Farrel Expires March 26, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA and the Independent Stream September 2019
In the event that 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 allocation
policy of the registry itself, and usually require documentation from
the same stream as 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 new registries are needed to track a new set of codepoints
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 registry.
The only exception to this rule is the creation of a sub-registry
that is specifically tied to a code point allocated for the same
document from an existing registry where the allocation policy for
that document is Specification Required, Expert Review, RFC Required,
or First Come First Served. Furthermore, where there is an appointed
DE for the parent registry, that DE must approve the creation of the
Farrel Expires March 26, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA and the Independent Stream September 2019
sub-registry. Additionally, the allocation policy for the new sub-
registry may only be First Come First Served, RFC Required,
Experimental, or Private Use. In particular, no sub-registry may be
created that would require IETF action to achieve a future codepoint
allocation. See Section 5 for an explanation of why the application
of Specification Required and Expert Review are not acceptable
policies for any sub-registry created from a document in the
Independent Stream.
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 sub-registry
created for Independent Stream documents will require the review of a
DE. That means that no new sub-registry 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.
Farrel Expires March 26, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA and the Independent Stream September 2019
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 contributes to the stability of the protocols themselves.
That is a benefit for the security of the Internet and the users of
the Internet.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Subramanian Moonesamy, Craig Partridge,
Michelle Cotton, Andrew Malis, Warren Kumari, Ned Freed, Rich Salz,
Michael Richardson, Colin Perkins, Brian Carpenter, Stephen Farrell,
Barry Leiba, and Benjamin Kaduk for suggestions and advice.
10. 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>.
[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>.
Author's Address
Adrian Farrel
Independent Submissions Editor
Email: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Farrel Expires March 26, 2020 [Page 5]
