Network Working Group K. Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Proposed Category: Best Current Practice A. Zinin
Alcatel
Expires: December 2004 June 2004
Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints
draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This memo discusses earlier allocation of code points by IANA as a
remedy to the problem created by the "Standards Action" IANA policy
for protocols where, by the IETF process, implementation and
deployment experience is desired or required prior to publication.
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 1]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
1. Introduction
In Standards Track RFCs, there is often the need to allocate code
points for various objects, messages or other protocol entities so
that implementations can interoperate. Many of these code point
spaces have registries handled by the Internet Assigned Number
Authority (IANA). Several IANA allocation policies are described in
RFC 2434 [2434]. Some of them, such as First Come First Served or
Expert Review, do not require a formal IETF action before the IANA
performs allocation. However, in situations where codepoints are a
scarce resource and/or the IETF community is willing to retain tight
control of the protocol, policies such as IESG Approval, IETF
Consensus, or Standards Action have been used. The Standards Action
policy represents a problem in situations where implementation and/or
deployment experience are desired or required for the Standards
Action.
To break the deadlock, "pre-RFC" implementations simply choose some
code points; these may turn out to be different from those later
assigned by IANA. To make matters worse, these "pre-RFC"
implementations are often deployed. This creates several potential
inteoperability problems between early implementations and
implementations of the final standard as described below:
1. IANA allocates codepoints different from what early
implementations assumed would be allocated. Early implementations
won't interoperate with standard ones.
2. IANA allocates codepoints silently used for other extensions.
Different extensions will collide.
This gets in the way of the main purpose of standards, namely to
facilitate interoperable implementations.
It is easy to say that pre-RFC implementations should be kept private
and not be deployed; however, both the length of the standards
process as well as the immense value of early implementations and
early deployments suggest finding a better solution. As an example,
in the case of documents produced by Working Groups in the Routing
Area, a pre-RFC implementation is highly desirable and sometimes even
required, and early deployments provide useful feedback on the
technical and operational quality of the specification.
This memo proposes that, under strictly controlled circumstances,
IANA makes an early allocation of code points. The memo lays out the
conditions for early allocation as well as the process to be
followed; it also says how such allocations are dealt with in the
event of a failure in the process (such as the RFC not being
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 2]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
published).
This memo only addresses the early allocation of code points from
spaces whose allocation policy is "Standards Action" [2434] AND have
been amended to permit early allocation. This permission must be
granted by the IESG, and code spaces with permission for early
allocation must be marked as such in the IANA registry.
2. Conditions for Early Allocation
The following conditions must hold before a request may be made for
early allocation of code points:
a) The code points must be from a space designated as "Standards
Action", amended by IESG approval to permit Early Allocation.
b) The format, semantics, processing and other rules related to
handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
(henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
in an Internet draft that is proposed as Standards Track.
c) The specifications of these code points must be stable, i.e., if
there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
d) There is sufficient interest in early (pre-RFC) implementation and
deployment in the community.
If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the processes in this memo
do not apply.
3. Process for Early Allocation
There are three processes associated with early allocation: making
the request for code points; following up on the request; and
revoking an early allocation. It cannot be emphasized enough that
these processes must have a minimal impact on IANA itself, or they
will not be feasible.
The processes as described below assume that the document in question
is the product of an IETF Working Group. If this is not the case,
replace "WG chairs" below by "shepherding Area Director".
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 3]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
3.1. Request
The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code
points is as follows:
1) The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code
points require early allocation and which document they should be
assigned to.
2) The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
allocations described in section 2 are met, particularly
conditions (c) and (d).
3) The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that
early allocation is appropriate in the case of the given document.
4) If so, with the approval of the Area Director(s), the WG chairs
request IANA to make an early allocation.
5) IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking it
as "temporary", valid for a period of one year from the date of
allocation. The date of allocation should also be recorded in the
registry and made visible to the public.
Note that Internet Drafts should not include a specific value of a
code-point until such value has been formally allocated by IANA.
3.2. Follow-up
It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working
Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the
specifications of the code points for which early allocation was
requested to ensure that the changes are backwards compatible.
If at some point changes that are not backwards compatible are
nonetheless required, a decision needs to be made whether previously
allocated codepoints must be deprecated or not (see section 3.3 for
more information on codepoint deprecation). The considerations
include such aspects as possibility of existing deployments of the
older implementations and hence the possibility for a collision
between older and newer implementations in the field.
If the document progresses to the point when IANA normally makes code
point allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and the WG
chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations, and of the
code point values so allocated, in the IANA Considerations section of
the RFC-to-be. Allocation is then just a matter of removing the
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 4]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
"temporary" tag from the allocation description.
3.3. Expiry
If early allocations expire before the document progresses to the
point where IANA normally makes allocations, the authors and WG
chairs may follow an abbreviated version of the process in section
3.1 to request renewal of the code points. At most one renewal
request may be made; thus, authors should choose carefully when the
original request is to be made.
As an exception to the above rule, under rare circumstances, more
than one allocation renewal may be justified. All such renewal
requests must be reviewed by the IESG. The renewal request to the
IESG must include the reasons why such renewal is necessary, and what
the WG's plans are regarding the specification.
If a follow-up request is not made, or the document fails to progress
to a Standards Track RFC, the WG chairs are responsible for informing
IANA that the code points are to be marked "deprecated" (and are not
to be allocated); the WG chairs are further responsible for informing
IANA when the deprecated code points can be completely de-allocated
(i.e., made available for new allocations).
In particular, it is not IANA's responsibility to track the status of
allocations or when they expire or when they may be re-allocated.
Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG and at
the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not
expired), these allocations should not be expired while the document
is under IESG consideration or waiting in the RFC Editor's queue
after the approval by the IESG.
4. IANA Considerations
This document defines procedures for early allocation of codepoints
in the registries with the Standards Action policy, and as such
directly affects IANA functions.
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 5]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
Normative References
[2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998
Security Considerations
It is important to keep in mind 'denial of service' attacks on IANA
as a result of the processes in this memo. There are two that
immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations;
and process overloading of IANA itself. The processes described here
attempt to alleviate both of these, but they should be subject to
scrutiny to ensure this.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Bert Wijnen, Adrian Farrel and Bill Fenner for their
input.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Alex Zinin
Alcatel
Email: zinin@psg.com
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 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 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
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 6]
Internet Draft Early Allocation of Standard Codepoints June 2004
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella & Zinin Best Current Practice [Page 7]
