INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten
IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cisco
September 16, 2004
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.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 March, 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
transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
values and interpretations in different implementations, their
assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF
protocols, 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
instructions 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 specific text that must be included in documents that place
demands on the IANA.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 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. Changes Relative to RFC 2434............................. 13
8.1. Changes Relative to -00............................. 13
9. Acknowledgments.......................................... 13
10. References.............................................. 13
11. 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
implementations, 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
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
number in a name space is called a registration.
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
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
subdomains 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
carefully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the
space is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be
perfectly reasonable 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 unnecessary 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.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed
protocol extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
review is often essential to prevent future interoperability
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
specific 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
rigorous 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
current 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
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
time without clear resolution. In addition, the IANA cannot
participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or
when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, the IANA cannot
allow general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive
recommendations 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
designated 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-
PROCESS]. 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
unambigous. 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
different (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
significance 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
[EXPERIMENTATION] for details.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
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
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
numbers, 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
documented 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
documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
documents 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].
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
RFCs approved by the IESG.
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
globally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required
policy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site
specific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it
possible 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.
Example 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
maintaining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:
- Let the author update the registration, subject to the same
constraints 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
registration.
- 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
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the
appropriate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA
Considerations" section is appropriate. The following subsections
define 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.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
- 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
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 provide clear instructions on details of the name space. In
particular, instructions MUST include:
1) The name of the registry being created and/or maintained. 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.
2) What information must be provided in order to assign a new
value.
3) The process through which future assignments are made (see Sec-
tion 3).
Note: When a Designated 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.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
When specifying the process for making future assignments, it is
quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies listed in Sec-
tion 3 and refer to it by name. Indeed, this is the preferred mecha-
nism in those cases where the sample policies provide the desired
level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the above poli-
cies and include additional guidelines for what kind of considera-
tions should be taken into account by the review process. For exam-
ple, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated Expert, but
includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should follow.
For example, a document could say something like:
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (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 enti-
tled "FooType values". 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
evaluation 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].
Specifically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if
necessary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as
overseer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is
final.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
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
documented 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
considerations. In addition, documented IANA considerations are
sometimes 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 protocols to properly document their IANA Considerations,
but to permit assignments in individual cases where it is obvious
that the assignment 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
protocol 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,
information 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
particular, 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".
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
8. Changes Relative to RFC 2434
TBD
8.1. Changes Relative to -00
- Revised Section 5.3 to try and make it even more clear.
9. 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].
10. 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,
"Multiprotocol 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
Considered 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.
Carpenter, F. Baker, M. Roberts, RFC 2860, June
2000.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
[IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 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
Protocol", 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
Continuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.
[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
[SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache
Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April
1998.
[SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869,
November 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.
11. 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
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
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.
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
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT September 16, 2004
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt [Page 16]
