Skip to main content

IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
02 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2009-08-26
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-08-25
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-08-25
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-08-25
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-08-24
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-08-19
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-08-18
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-08-18
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-08-17
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-08-17
02 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-08-17
02 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-08-17
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Russ Housley
2009-08-14
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-08-13
2009-08-13
02 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-13
02 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-08-13
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
Shouldn't RFC 5226 be a normative reference (e.g., this document uses specific terms and rules from RFC 5226)?
2009-08-13
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-08-12
02 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-12
02 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-08-12
02 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-08-12
02 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-08-11
02 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2009-08-11
02 (System) New version available: draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-02.txt
2009-08-11
02 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-08-11
02 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 6., paragraph 1:
>    [IANA]    IANA, "IANA Matrix for Protocol Parameter Assignment/
>              Registration …
[Ballot comment]
Section 6., paragraph 1:
>    [IANA]    IANA, "IANA Matrix for Protocol Parameter Assignment/
>              Registration Procedures",
>              .

  Unused Reference: 'IANA' is defined on line 192, but no explicit
  reference was found in the text


Section 6., paragraph 3:
>    [RFC2928]  Hinden, R., Deering, S., Fink, R., and T. Hain, "Initial
>              IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", RFC 2928, September 2000.

  Unused Reference: 'RFC2928' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
  reference was found in the text
2009-08-11
02 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2., paragraph 1:
>    [rfc3330bis] records the assignment of an IPv4 address prefix to IANA
>    for IETF protocol assignments. …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2., paragraph 1:
>    [rfc3330bis] records the assignment of an IPv4 address prefix to IANA
>    for IETF protocol assignments.

  DISCUSS: Reference to [rfc3330bis] is missing. (I'm only making this a
  discuss because you really need this as a Normative reference.)


Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    This recommendation concerns the management of the address pool used
>    for IETF protocol assignments as documented in [rfc3330bis] in
>    [date], namely 192.0.0.0/24.

  DISCUSS: Do you want the RFC Editor to do anything with [date] here?
2009-08-11
02 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-08-11
02 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-08-08
02 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-08
02 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
3.  IANA Considerations

  This recommendation concerns the management of the address pool used
  for IETF protocol assignments as documented in [rfc3330bis] …
[Ballot comment]
3.  IANA Considerations

  This recommendation concerns the management of the address pool used
  for IETF protocol assignments as documented in [rfc3330bis] in
  [date], namely 192.0.0.0/24.

"in [date]" looks like a placeholder.


The document doesn't use any RFC 2119, but I suppose this is Ok.
2009-08-06
02 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-07-23
02 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley
2009-07-23
02 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-08-13 by Russ Housley
2009-07-23
02 Russ Housley Note field has been cleared by Russ Housley
2009-07-01
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-06-16
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer.
2009-06-05
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2009-06-05
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2009-06-03
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-06-03
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-06-03
02 Russ Housley Last Call was requested by Russ Housley
2009-06-03
02 Russ Housley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley
2009-05-20
02 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

When will this document receive a Last Call, as we believe it should?

Upon publication of draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry, the IANA understands that it …
IANA comments:

When will this document receive a Last Call, as we believe it should?

Upon publication of draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry, the IANA understands that it must complete a single action.

IANA will create a new IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry for the management of IANA-designated IPv4 address blocks.

For each address block in 192.0.0.0/24 that is added to the IPv4 Special
Purpose Address Registry, the IANA understands that it must include the
following information:

1] The designated address prefix.
2] The RFC that called for the IANA address designation.
3] The date the designation was made.
4] The date the use designation is to be terminated (if specified as a limited-use designation).
5] The nature of the purpose of the designated address (e.g. unicast experiment
or protocol service anycast).
6] For experimental unicast applications and otherwise as appropriate, the
registry will also identify the entity and related contact details to whom the address designation has been made.
7] The registry will also note, for each designation, the intended routing
scope of the address, indicating whether the address is intended to be routable only in scoped, local, or private contexts, or whether the address prefix is intended to be routed globally.

IANA understands that registrations in the new IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry for 192.0.0.0/24 can only come from full standards track documents including Proposed, Draft, and full Internet Standards and Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA assignment.

The procedures describing the rules for assignment are located in RFC 2860.

IANA understands that creation of this new IPv4 Special Purpose Address
Registry is the only action required upon publication of this document. No
initial registrations for blocks in the 192.0.0.0/24 are provided for in this document.
2009-04-16
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2009-04-16
02 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley
2009-04-16
02 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2009-04-16
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-04-16
02 (System) Last call text was added
2009-04-16
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-04-15
02 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley
2009-04-15
02 Russ Housley
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
  …
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Russ Housley. He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Yes, the document has had adequate review. It is almost identical to draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials, which was published as RFC 4773, other than a /24 of IPv4 being substituted for a /23 of IPv6.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

No concerns.

  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document is definitely desired. Drafts from the softwires WG call for an assignment from the new registry created by this document.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are not
      enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all
      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
      type and URI type reviews?

Yes. We believe we will need to add a reference to the IANA matrix for the registry and remove a reference to an old RFC here:

http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01.txt

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion?  Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

No.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document?  If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified?  If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes, no need to worry about these. It's all about IANA considerations and they are appropriately addressed.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

No such section requires checking.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:


The IESG has no problem with the publication of "IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry" (draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01) as an Informational RFC.

This document is an Individual Submission by Geoff Huston, Michelle Cotton and Leo Vegoda. The IESG contact person is Russ Housely.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01

      Technical Summary

        This is a direction to IANA concerning the creation and management of
        the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry.

      Working Group Summary

        As an Individual Submission no IETF Working Group was involved in the preparation of this document.

      Document Quality

        This document was reviewed by Russ Housely.

        Personnel
        Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
        Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com)

        Who is the Responsible Area Director?
        Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com)
2009-04-01
02 Russ Housley Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested
2009-02-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01.txt
2009-02-24
00 (System) New version available: draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-00.txt