Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                           J. ArkkoRequest for Comments: 5237                                      EricssonBCP: 37                                                       S. BradnerUpdates:2780                                         Harvard UniversityCategory: Best Current Practice                            February 2008IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol FieldStatus 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.Abstract   This document revises the IANA guidelines for allocating new Protocol   field values in IPv4 header.  It modifies the rules specified inRFC2780 by removing the Expert Review option.  The change will also   affect the allocation of Next Header field values in IPv6.1.  Introduction   This document revises the IANA guidelines [RFC2780] for allocating   new Protocol field values in IPv4 header [RFC0791].  The change will   also be applicable for IPv6, as the IANA guidelines for IPv6 Next   Header values [RFC2460] allocation refer to the IPv4 guidelines.   Previously,RFC 2780 allowed such allocations to happen through IESG   Approval, Standards action, or Expert Review processes   [RFC2780][RFC2434].  The Expert Review process was specified to be   used only in the case where a non-disclosure agreement was involved:      IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following      an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process.  The      Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases      where non-disclosure information is involved.  In these cases the      expert(s) should be designated by the IESG.   The need for the Standards Action rule is obvious as the IETF keeps   developing new protocols.  It is equally obvious that there is a need   to allow experimental allocations in this space; seeRFC 4727   [RFC4727] for an example.  Similarly, there are cases when it makes   sense to allocate values out of this space for other non-Standards   Track or non-IETF uses.  However, the size of the field is 256   values, and 55% of these were in use at the time this document was   written.  As a result, a sanity check is needed to ensure thatArkko & Bradner          Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 5237               Protocol Field IANA Rules           February 2008   allocations are not made needlessly.RFC 2780 specifies the IESG   Approval rule to take care of these sanity checks for the non-   Standards Track cases.  The judgment call can take into account the   existence of a stable protocol specification, constituency that wants   to use it, need to avoid duplicated allocations for the same purpose,   whether protocol number allocation is the right solution for this   problem as opposed to, say, a TCP port, and so on.   However, we now believe that the non-disclosure agreement option is   not appropriate for allocations in this space.  Traditionally, non-   disclosure agreements have been used by the IANA when a company was   developing a proprietary protocol and did not want to disclose new   areas of research or future products.  The protocol space is limited   enough that we no longer believe that it is reasonable to use the   resource for such proprietary protocols.  Thus, we believe that   allocations should only be made using the IESG Approval or Standards   Action processes when there are public specifications that can be   reviewed.   As a result, this document revises theRFC 2780 rules by removing the   option for Expert Review for the IPv4 Protocol and IPv6 Next Header   fields.  This document takes no position on the allocation of other   parameters with non-disclosure agreements, as those parameters may   require different policies.2.  IANA Considerations   This document replaces theRFC 2780 Section 4.3 rule [RFC2780] with   the following:      IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following      an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.   This document also makes an implicit change to the rule for the IPv6   Next Header field inSection 5.3 of RFC 2780.  That rule refers to   the rule inSection 4.3 of the same RFC.  From now on, this reference   should be understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without   the Expert Review option.3.  Security Considerations   This specification does not change the security properties of the   affected protocols.Arkko & Bradner          Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 5237               Protocol Field IANA Rules           February 20084.  Acknowledgments   Issues with the originalRFC 2780 rules were uncovered in discussions   of the IETF-IANA team.  The team also provided background information   on the practical difficulties encountered with non-disclosure   agreements.  The authors would like to thank Thomas Narten, Bill   Fenner, and Michelle Cotton in particular.5.  References5.1.  Normative References   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5,RFC 791,              September 1981.   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 2434,              October 1998.   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6              (IPv6) Specification",RFC 2460, December 1998.   [RFC2780]  Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For              Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",BCP 37,RFC 2780, March 2000.5.2.  Informative References   [RFC4727]  Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,              ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers",RFC 4727, November 2006.Arkko & Bradner          Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 5237               Protocol Field IANA Rules           February 2008Appendix A.  Changes fromRFC 2780Section 4.3 fromRFC 2780 has been changed from:      IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following      an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process.  The      Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases      where non-disclosure information is involved.  In these cases the      expert(s) should be designated by the IESG.   to:      IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following      an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.   In addition,RFC 2780 Section 5.3 reference to IPv4 rules should be   understood to refer to the rule revised here, i.e., without the   Expert Review option.Authors' Addresses   Jari Arkko   Ericsson   Jorvas  02420   Finland   EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net   Scott Bradner   Harvard University   Cambridge, MA  02138   US   Phone: +1 617 495 3864   EMail: sob@harvard.eduArkko & Bradner          Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 5237               Protocol Field IANA Rules           February 2008Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors   retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Arkko & Bradner          Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]