Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                            M. RoseRequest for Comments: 3349                  Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.BCP: 59                                                        July 2002Category: Best Current PracticeA Transient Prefix for Identifying Profiles under Development by theWorking Groups of the Internet Engineering Task ForceStatus 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.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   As a part of their deliverables, working groups of the IETF may   develop BEEP profiles.  During the development process, it is   desirable to assign a transient identifier to each profile.  If the   profile is subsequently published as an RFC, then a permanent   identifier is subsequently assigned by the IANA.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002Table of Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.  Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4       References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5B.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5       Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 20021. Introduction   Each BEEP profile [1] is identified by a URI [2].  The BEEP   specification uses URIs to identify a BEEP profile both:   o  statically, when a profile is formally defined (RFC 3080'sSection5.1); and,   o  dynamically, during channel management (RFC 3080'sSection 2.3.1).   If the BEEP profile appears on the standards-track [3], then the IANA   is responsible for assigning the URI associated with the BEEP   profile.  Otherwise, the entity specifying the BEEP profile is free   to assign a URI under its administration to the profile.   If a working group of the IETF is developing a BEEP profile, then,   during the development process, it is desirable to use a transient   identifier for the profile.  Further, it is desirable that the   transient identifier be associated with the working group.   This memo defines the practice for making such an assignment.  Note   that this practice does not apply to activities outside of working   groups -- anyone able to assign a URL is capable of defining a URI   for the purposes of identifying the BEEP profiles that they develop.2. Practice   When a working group is formed, the IETF secretariat assigns a brief   mnemonic prefix to the working group, e.g., "provreg" or "sacred".   When a working group begins development of a document which specifies   a BEEP profile, the working group chair assigns a transient   identifier of the form "http://iana.org/beep/transient/XXX/YYY" where   "XXX" is the working group's mnemonic and "YYY" is a unique string.   Although the resulting URI must conform to the URI syntax, the "YYY"   portion is otherwise arbitrary.  For example, it may contain a sub-   hierarchy (e.g., "epp/1.0").   For example,http://iana.org/beep/transient/provreg/epp/1.0http://iana.org/beep/transient/sacred/pdm   might be assigned by the chairs of the "provreg" and "sacred" working   groups, respectively.   Following this, the working group chair completes a BEEP profile   registration template, and submits this information to the IANA.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002   Note that although the IETF hasn't established a practice with   respect to the use of capitalization in URLs employed for namespace   purposes, the W3C has a lowercase-only policy.  Working group chairs   are encouraged to consider this when making assignments.3. Security Considerations   This document describes an administrative convention and raises no   additional security considerations.  Of course, each BEEP-based   protocol has its own set of security considerations, which should be   described in the relevant specification.References   [1]  Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",RFC3080, March 2001.   [2]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource        Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax",RFC 2396, August 1998.   [3]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the        IETF Standards Process",BCP 11,RFC 2028, October 1996.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002Appendix A. Acknowledgements   The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Dan Kohn and   Bob Wyman.Appendix B. IANA Considerations   The IANA maintains a registry of transient identifiers used for BEEP   profiles under development in the IETF, using the profile   registration template defined in Section 5.1 of [1].   Note that unlike the registration procedures defined inAppendix B of   [1], the working group chair (instead of the IESG) is responsible for   authorizing the registration.Author's Address   Marshall T. Rose   Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.   POB 255268   Sacramento, CA  95865-5268   US   Phone: +1 916 483 8878   EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.usRose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than   English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]