Internet DRAFT - draft-lear-iana-icg-response
draft-lear-iana-icg-response
IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Housley, Ed.
Intended status: Informational September 12, 2014
Expires: March 16, 2015
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals
on IANA
draft-lear-iana-icg-response-01
Abstract
This document contains the a draft response to a request for
proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
regarding the protocol parameters registries. It is meant to be
included in an aggregate proposal that also includes contributions
covering names and addresses that will be submitted from their
respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to
comment and propose changes to this document.
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 http://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 16, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
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. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. IETF Introduction
In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information
Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. In that
announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal for
transition. As part of that process, the IANA Stewardship Transition
Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. They solicited proposals
regarding the respective functions that IANA performs, in order that
they may put forth a proposal to the NTIA.
While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and
IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol
registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an
introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2
contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal
response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a
questionnaire we have quoted questions with ">>> " and we have
prefaced answers to questions being asked with "IETF Response:".
Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions
asked in order to match the RFC format.
As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included
in a footnote in the original propsoal.
In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in
the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/
iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions
traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SAC-067
[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] provides
one description of the many different meanings of the term "IANA" and
may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the
agreement itself.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
2. The Formal RFP Response
Introduction
NOTE: This section is taken in its entirety from the questionnaire
dated 8 September 2014.
Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
Charter [ICG-CHARTER], the ICG has four main tasks:
(i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA
stewardship transition, including the three "operational
communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service
relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names,
numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of:
a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities
b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities
affected by the IANA functions
(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities
for compatibility and interoperability
(iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition
(iv) Information sharing and public communication
This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG
Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-
operational communities.
0. Complete Formal Responses
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks
complete formal responses to this RFP from the "operational
communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service
relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with
names, numbers, or protocol parameters).
Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all
interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the
operational communities are requested to consult and work with other
affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its
light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly
encouraged to participate in community processes.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
The following link provides information about ongoing community
processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to
be updated over time:
https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community
Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in
developing their responses, so that all community members may fully
participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also
asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any
other parties with interest in their response.
A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to
reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to
produce a single plan for the transition of IANA stewardship.
Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those elements that are
considered to be truly essential to the transition of their specific
IANA functions.
The target deadline for all complete formal responses to this RFP is
15 January 2015.
I. Comments
While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals from the
operational communities only, and that all interested parties get
involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes,
some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about
specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community
processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be
directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-
forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived at <http://
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/>.
Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to
the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will
review comments received as time and resources permit and in
accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is,
comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until
those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may
establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in the
future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been
received.
Required Proposal Elements
The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that
contains the elements described in this section.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the
sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the
suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily
assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to
allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to
provide further information in explanatory sections, including
descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated references
to source documents of specific policies/practices. In this way, the
responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the operational
level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities.
In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should
cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions
Contract[NTIA-Contract] when describing existing arrangements and
proposing changes to existing arrangements.
>>>
>>> 0. Proposal Type
>>>
>>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this
>>> submission proposes to address:
>>>
IETF Response:
[XXX] Protocol Parameters
This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also
represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF.
>>>
>>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions</t>
>>>
>>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services
>>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service
>>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the
>>> following:
>>> A description of the service or activity.
>>>
IETF Response:
Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters.
These parameters are used by implementers, who are the IETF's primary
users of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure
consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these
IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available
registry containing the parameter values and a pointer to
documentation of the associated semantic intent. The IETF uses the
IANA protocol parameter registries to implement such registries.
>>>
>>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
>>>
IETF Response:
The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF).
The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is
to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are
published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible for the key
standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP,
DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.
The IETF operates an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The
processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series.
The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That
document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how
disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a
number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX].
The standards process can be amended in the same manner that
standards are approved. That is, someone proposes a change by
submitting a temporary document known as an Internet-Draft, the
community discusses it, and if rough consensus can be found the
change is approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG),
who also have day-to-day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus
on technical decisions, including those that affect IANA. Anyone may
propose a change during a Last Call, and anyone may participate in
the community discussion.
>>>
>>> What registries are involved in providing the service or
>>> activity.
>>>
IETF Response:
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work.
Administration of the protocol parameter registries is the service
that is provide to the IETF.
>>>
>>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
>>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
>>> communities
>>>
IETF Response:
It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to
participate, including anyone from ICANN or the regional Internet
registries (RIRs), and many people from those organizations regularly
do.
o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with
regard to domain names. These registries require coordination
with the Generic Names Support Organization (GNSO). We already
perform this coordination.[RFC6761]
o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have
been and will be updates to that protocol. We will continue to
coordinate with ICANN regarding those changes.
o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should
those requirements change, we will inform ICANN.
o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to
continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on
appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that
happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done
in the past.
o The IETF has established registries with IANA for special IPv4 and
IPv6 assignments. These are specified in [RFC6890]. The IETF
coordinates such assignments with the RIRs.
o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and
service providers. A recent example is the expansion of the BGP
community field from 16 to 32 bits.[RFC6793] It is important to
note that this change occurred out of operational necessity, and
it demonstrated strong alignment between the RIRs and the IETF.
>>> III. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>>
>>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related
>>> arrangements work, prior to the transition.
>>>
>>> A. Policy Sources
>>>
>>>
>>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy
>>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its
>>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there
>>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for
>>> different IANA activities, then please describe these
>>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development,
>>> please provide the following:
>>>
>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
>>> affected.
>>>
IETF Response: The protocol parameters registry.
>>>
>>> A description of how policy is developed and established and
>>> who is involved in policy development and establishment.
>>>
IETF Response:
Policy for overall management of the registries is stated in RFCs in
[RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents explains the
model for how the registries are to be operated, how policy is set,
and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the policies that
specification writers may employ when they define new protocol
registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each
specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the
form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If
there is sufficient interest, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
may choose to create a working group or an Area Director may choose
to sponsor the draft. In either case, anyone may comment on the
proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG
unless it enjoys sufficient community support as to indicate rough
consensus [RFC7282] In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that
there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or process.
Anyone may comment during a Last Call.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>>
>>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.
>>>
IETF Response:
Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working
group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any
action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict
resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area
Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an
appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where an someone claims
that the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some
way to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the
Internet Society Board of Trustees.
>>>
>>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute
>>> resolution processes.
>>>
IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a
conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working
group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been
amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. Please also
see the references at the bottom of this document.
>>>
>>> B. Oversight and Accountability
>>>
>>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is
>>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the
>>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in
>>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for
>>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or
>>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the
>>> following as are applicable:
>>>
>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
>>> affected.
>>>
IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>>
>>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are
>>> affected, identify which ones are affected.
>>>
IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters
registry have been specified in II.A.
>>>
>>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
>>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals
>>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities.
>>>
IETF Response:
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the
IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming
appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above,
management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general
architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must
approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf
of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing liaison
relationships with other orgnaizations on behalf of the IETF. The
IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850].
The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating
Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. This
process provides for selection of active members of the community who
themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. Those candidates are
sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In
general, members serve for two years. The IAB selects its own chair.
The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameter registries of
the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s)
and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships
among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in
conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded
that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is
currently ICANN.
>>>
>>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting
>>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a
>>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator
>>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and
>>> the terms under which the mechanism may change.
>>>
IETF Response:
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF
community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in
[RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA
staff for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), a
peer organization to the IETF that focuses on research. Each year a
service level agreement is negotiated that supplements the MoU.
Day-to-day administration and contract management is the
responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. IAOC
members are appointed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees, the
IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with ICANN
to establish annual IANA performance metrics and operational
procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to
the MoU each year [MOUSUP].
To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the
unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC
and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The
MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the
arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only
be undertaken after serious consideration.
>>>
>>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal
>>> basis on which the mechanism rests.
>>>
IETF Response
Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction are
immaterial.
>>>IV. Proposed changes to IANA Activities/Services
>>>
>>> This section should describe what changes your community is
>>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of
>>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or
>>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed
>>> in Section II.B should be described for the new
>>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and
>>> justification for the new arrangements.
>>>
>>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for
>>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those
>>> implications should be described here.
>>>
>>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements
>>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that
>>> choice should be provided here.
>>>
IETF Response:
No changes are required, as over the years since the creation of
ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of
agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that covers what is
needed.
First and foremost, IANA protocol parameter registry updates will
continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last
decade or more. The IETF community is quite satisfied with the
current arrangement with ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has
served the IETF community very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an
appropriate service description and requirements.
Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding
principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter
registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is
not significant.
1. The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and
continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.
The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within
the Internet technical community are both important given how
critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF
protocols.
We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameter registry
function needs to be strong enough that they can be offered
independently by the Internet technical community, without the need
for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are
there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and
continuous improvements are being made.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
2. The protocol parameter registry function requires openness,
transparency, and accountability.
Existing documentation of how the function is administered and
overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and
clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet
community can understand how the function works, and that the
processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee
the protocol parameter function accountable for following those
processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed
to making improvements here if necessary.
3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameter registry
function should respect existing Internet community agreements.
The protocol parameter registry is working well. The existing
Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the technical work
to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on
behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet
Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol parameter
registry function should be made using the IETF process to update RFC
6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: evolution, not
revolution.
4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service
by Internet registries.
The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not
just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and
other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined
protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards
development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/
number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special-
use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed.
The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other
parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation
of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work
together.
5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter
registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards
process and the use of resulting protocols.
RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters
registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF
protocols. The 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
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as
management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines
for parameter allocation.
6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public
service.
Directions for the creation of protocol parameter registries and the
policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs.
The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and
they are published in a form that allows their contents to be
included in other works without further permission. These works
include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet
protocols and their associated documentation.
These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF
community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA
performance metrics and operational procedures.
>>> IV Transition Implications
>>>
>>> This section should describe what your community views as the
>>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These
>>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other
>>> implications specific to your community:
>>>
>>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity
>>> of service and possible new service integration throughout
>>> the transition.
>>> o Risks to operational continuity
>>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the
>>> absence of the NTIA contract
>>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the
>>> workability of any new technical or operational methods
>>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established
>>> arrangements.
>>>
IETF Response:
No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will
guide IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with
ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational
procedures, as they have in the past.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
As no services are expected to change, no continuity issuees are
anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods
proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the
RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen
issues that might arise as a result of other changes.
>>>
>>> V. NTIA Requirements
>>>
>>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal
>>> must meet the following five requirements:
>>>
>>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;"
>>>
IETF Response:
Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies
and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above. In-
person attendance is not required for participation, and many people
participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF
meeting. An email account is the only requirement to participate.
The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication
to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder
ecosystem.
>>>
>>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
>>> Internet DNS;"
>>>
IETF Response:
The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries.
As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very
well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.[METRICS]
Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best
protected by maintaining the current service in its current form.
>>>
>>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
>>> partners of the IANA services;"
>>>
IETF Response:
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the
IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameter registries.
The current IANA protocol parameter registry system is meeting the
needs of these global customers. This proposal continues to meet
their needs by maintaining the existing processes that have served
them well in the past.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet."
>>>
IETF Response:
This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows
anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including
the IANA protocol parameter registry policies. Further, an
implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol
specification published n the RFC series and the protocol parameter
registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in
the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as
specified by the existing policies for those registries.
{We will have an open discussion, make changes based on that
discussion, and then conduct a Last Call to confirm that there is
rough consensus for the proposal.}
>>>
>>> VI. Community Process
>>>
>>> This section should describe the process your community used for
>>> developing this proposal, including:
>>>
>>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to
>>> determine consensus.
>>>
IETF Response:
The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this
response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate
in the development of this response. An open mailing list
(ianaplan@ietf.org) was associated with the working group. In
addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader
community, and all input is welcome.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
>>>
>>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and
>>> meeting proceedings.
>>>
IETF Response: [xxx to be completed in more detail]
The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open
discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the
past few months.
Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: http://w
ww.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12978.html
Announcement of a public session on the transition: http://
www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13028.html
Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/
msg13170.html
>>>
>>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
>>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
>>> disagreement.
>>>
IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses.
3. IANA Considerations
This memo is a response a request for proposals. No parameter
allocations or changes are sought.
4. Security Considerations
While the IANA framework has shown strong resiliency, the IETF will
continue to work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements
in our standards.
5. Acknowledgments
This document does not define new processes, and so it seems we
acknowledge all of the preceding IAB members and members of the
community who developed the processes that we describe. The initial
version of this document was developed collaboratively through both
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
the IAB IANA Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular
thanks go to Jari Arkko, John Klensin, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew
Sullivan, Leslie Daigle, Barry Leiba, Brian Carpenter, and Greg Wood.
6. Informative References
[ICG-CHARTER]
, "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
(ICG) Charter", , <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/
files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf>.
[METRICS] , "Performance Standards Metrics Report", ,
<http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics>.
[MOUSUP] , "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of
Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)", ,
<http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html>.
[NTIA-Contract]
, "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", , <http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>.
[RFC-INDEX]
RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC
Index, August 2014.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850,
May 2000.
[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.
[RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational
Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area
Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001.
[RFC3595] Wijnen, B., "Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label", RFC
3595, September 2003.
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
4071, April 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G.,
Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and
Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators",
RFC 6220, April 2011.
[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
RFC 6761, February 2013.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December
2012.
[RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St.
Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards",
RFC 6852, January 2013.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC
6890, April 2013.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC
7282, June 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Eliot Lear (editor)
Richtistrasse 7
Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
Email: lear@cisco.com
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA ICG Response September 2014
Russ Housley (editor)
918 Spring Noll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Lear & Housley Expires March 16, 2015 [Page 20]
