INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten
IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco
July 19, 2004
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.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,
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 mate-
rial 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.
This Internet-Draft expires January, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and
deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a
new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication trans-
form for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF pro-
tocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA).
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can
be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management
of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instruc-
tions describing that role. This document discusses issues that
should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to
a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the spe-
cific text that must be included in documents that place demands on
the IANA.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 3
2. Issues To Consider....................................... 4
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions....................... 6
4. Registration maintenance................................. 8
5. What To Put In Documents................................. 8
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions...................... 9
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space.. 9
5.3. Creation of New Registries.......................... 10
6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs.................... 11
7. Security Considerations.................................. 12
8. Acknowledgments.......................................... 12
9. References............................................... 13
10. Authors' Addresses...................................... 14
1. Introduction
Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other
well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or
MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has
been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be
assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption
or authentication algorithm for IPsec [IPSEC]). To ensure that such
fields have consistent values and interpretations in different imple-
mentations, their assignment must be administered by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].
In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
a "name space"; its actual content may be a name, a number or another
kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name space is
called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each assignment of a
number in a name space is called a registration.
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values
should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on
what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews
issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy
for assigning numbers to name spaces.
Not all name spaces require centralized administration. In some
cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
further assignments can be made independently and with no further
(central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while subdo-
mains are administered by the organization to which the space has
been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED]. When a name space
can be delegated, the IANA only deals with assignments at the top
level.
This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their
negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
"the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.
2. Issues To Consider
One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the
space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made care-
fully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the space
is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly rea-
sonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one. Even when
the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable
to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of or unnec-
essary wasting of a space. For example, if the space consists of
text strings, it may be desirable to prevent organizations from
obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to the "best" names
(e.g., existing company names). Experience has also shown that some
level of minimal review is useful to prevent assignments in cases
where the request is malformed or not actually needed (this may not
always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-matter expert).
A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name
space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate,
as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments.
A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed proto-
col extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
review is often essential to prevent future interoperability
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail.
In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no
potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be
given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA
can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given spe-
cific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and
what information must be provided before a request for an assigned
number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an
assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow
it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity.
In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate,
and the question becomes who should perform the review and how rigor-
ous the review needs to be. In many cases, one might think that an
IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should
be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they
cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for
name spaces to be created through individual submission documents,
for which no WG is ever formed.
One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to
have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such
an action helps ensure that the IESG and relevant WGs review the
assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] This is the
preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly important if
any potential interoperability issues can arise. For example, many
assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of
protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to
be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit
cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols
on which they are built.
In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to
get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful
(and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing
list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for
media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a cur-
rent or former IETF WG). Such a mailing list provides a way for new
registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, or
to give advice for persons who want help in understanding what a
proper registration should contain.
While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical
expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot partici-
pate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when
such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot allow
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive recom-
mendations regarding a registration question. Instead, the IANA will
rely on a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters.
That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a specific
point-of-contact (one or a small number of individuals) and acts upon
the returned recommendation from the designated expert. The desig-
nated expert can initiate and coordinate as wide a review of an
assignment request as may be necessary to evaluate it properly.
Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
will appoint replacements if necessary.
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PRO-
CESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they
may be removed by the IESG.
3. Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions
The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to
date. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and unam-
bigous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where possible,
since there meaning is widely understood.
Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
prevent multiple sites from using the same value in differ-
ent (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA to
review such assignments and assignments are not generally
useful for interoperability.
Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have signif-
icance only within a single site. "X-foo:" header lines in
email messages.
Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See [EXPERI-
MENTATION] for details.
Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values
provided they have been given control over that part of the
name space. IANA controls the higher levels of the
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
namespace according to one of the other policies.
Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers
First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so
long as they provide a point of contact and a brief
description of what the value would be used for. For num-
bers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA;
with names, specific names are usually requested.
Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP
and UDP port numbers.
Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
Expert is required.
Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be docu-
mented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
between independent implementations is possible.
Examples: SCSP [SCSP]
IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG.
Although there is no requirement that the request be docu-
mented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request docu-
ments or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
basis.
IETF Review - (Formerly "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS])
New values are assigned only through RFC publication of
documents that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. The intention is that
the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by
the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable
working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed
assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or
otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate manner.
[XXX: should an explicit last call be required?]
Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent
Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].
Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
RFCs approved by the IESG.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG]
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name
space into several categories, with assignments out of each category
handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is
split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are glob-
ally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required pol-
icy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site spe-
cific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it possi-
ble to have different policies in place for different ranges.
4. Registration maintenance
Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
include more information than just the registered value itself. Exam-
ple information can include point of contact information, security
issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc. In such
cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for main-
taining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same con-
straints and review as with new registrations.
- Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the regis-
tration.
- Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
reached in order to make necessary updates.
5. What To Put In Documents
The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered
in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other
protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the appro-
priate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Con-
siderations" section is appropriate. The following subsections define
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
what is needed for the different types of IANA actions.
5.1. When There Are No IANA Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu-
ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA Actions.
5.2. Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space
Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:
- From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
should be clear from the references.)
- For each value being requested, give it a unique name, e.g., TBD1,
TBD2, etc. Throughout the document where the actual IANA-assigned
value should be filled in, use "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure
that the final RFC has the correct assigned value filled in in all
of the relevant places where the value is listed in the final doc-
ument.
- Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX
is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
some other use.
- The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
include a summary table.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
5.3. Creation of New Registries
Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of
an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in main-
taining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val-
ues) MUST document the process through which future assignments are
made. Such a section must state clearly:
- The name of the new registry to be created. The name will appear
on the IANA web page and will be refered to in future Internet
Drafts that need to allocate a value from the new space.
- The review steps under which future allocations from the name
space will be made (i.e., see Section 3). Note: When a Desig-
nated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the Designated
Expert in the document itself; instead, the name should be
relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the time the
document is sent to the IESG for approval.
- If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public
mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types),
that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that
use of a Designated Expert MUST also be specified.
- if the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an
outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the
requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity.
Finally, it is quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies
cited above and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred
mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the
desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of
considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
Expert, but includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
follow.
For example, a document could say something like:
This document defines the FooBar DHCP option (see Section y),
assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space [RFCXXX].
The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType field, for
which IANA is to create and maintain a registry. Initial values
for FooType field are given below; future assignments are to be
made through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments
consist of a name and the value.
Name Value Definition
---- ----- ----------
Frobnitz 1 See Section y.1
NitzFrob 2 See Section y.2
For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME-
LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575].
6. Applicability to Past and Future RFCs
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evalua-
tion policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue
to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies
can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process.
Any decisions made by the IANA can be appealed using the normal IETF
appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specif-
ically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if neces-
sary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as over-
seer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
for managing the name space.
[XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is
appropriate to include??]
Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the docu-
mented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always
adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older
routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA considera-
tions. In addition, documented IANA considerations are sometimes
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
found to be too stringent to allow even working group documents (for
which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points from IANA in
advance of actual RFC publication. In other cases, the documented
procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the cases. In order
to allow assignments in individual cases where there is strong IETF
consensus that an allocation should go forward, but the documented
procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG is granted
authority to approve assignments in such cases. The intention is not
to overule documented procedures, or to obviate the need for proto-
cols to properly document their IANA Considerations, but to permit
assignments in individual cases where it is obvious that the assign-
ment should just be made, but updating the IANA process just to
assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy a burden.
7. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated.
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a proto-
col may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities related
to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a protocol)
may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, informa-
tion about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing
registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true security
issues surrounding the use of a registered number.
An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be
as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration. In par-
ticular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated
with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to
state that "the security issues associated with this type have not
been assessed".
8. Acknowledgments
From RFC 2434:
Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and
patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document.
Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the
document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
borrowed from [MIME-REG].
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
9. References
[ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994. See also:
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, "Multi-
protocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283, February
1998.
[DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Consid-
ered Useful". T. Narten, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work
of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B. Car-
penter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June 2000.
[IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revi-
sion 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Proto-
col", RFC 1825, August 1995.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Con-
tinuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.
[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Inter-
net Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache Syn-
chronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April 1998.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
[SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, Novem-
ber 1995.
[VENDOR-EXT] "Considerations on the Extensibility of IETF protocols",
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt
[RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003.
10. Authors' Addresses
Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
Phone: 919-254-7798
EMail: narten@us.ibm.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
5245 Arboretum Dr
Los Altos, CA
USA
Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
Intellectual Property Statement
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 in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
ances 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 at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT July 19, 2004
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 INFOR-
MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
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.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt [Page 15]
