💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc7500.txt captured on 2022-01-08 at 15:42:05.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) R. Housley, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7500 Vigil Security
Category: Informational O. Kolkman, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Internet Society
April 2015
Principles for Operation of
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registries
Abstract
This document provides principles for the operation of Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7500.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Principles for the Operation of IANA Registries .................3
3. Discussion ......................................................4
3.1. Ensuring Uniqueness, Stability, and Predictability .........4
3.2. Public .....................................................4
3.3. Open and Transparent .......................................4
3.4. Accountable ................................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................5
5. Informative References ..........................................6
IAB Members at the Time of Approval ................................7
Contributors and Acknowledgements ..................................7
Authors' Addresses .................................................7
1. Introduction
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its predecessors have
traditionally separated the publication of protocol specifications in
immutable Request for Comments (RFCs) and the registries containing
protocol parameters. Traditionally, the registries are maintained by
a set of functions known collectively as the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA). Dating back to the earliest days of the
Internet, specification publication and the registry operations were
tightly coupled: Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute
(ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC) was responsible
for both RFC publication and IANA registry operation. This tight
coupling had advantages, but it was never a requirement. Indeed,
today the RFC Editor and IANA registry operation are provided by
different entities.
Internet registries are critical to the operation of the Internet,
because they provide a definitive record of the value and meaning of
identifiers that protocols use when communicating with each other.
Almost every Internet protocol makes use of registries in some form.
At the time of writing, the IANA maintains more than two thousand
protocol parameter registries.
Internet registries hold protocol identifiers consisting of constants
and other well-known values used by Internet protocols. These values
can be numbers, strings, addresses, and so on. They are uniquely
assigned for one particular purpose or use. Identifiers can be
maintained in a central list (such as a list of cryptographic
algorithms) or they can be hierarchically allocated and assigned by
separate entities at different points in the hierarchy (such as IP
addresses and domain names). To maximize trust and usefulness of the
IANA registries, the principles in this document should be taken into
consideration for centralized registries as well as hierarchically
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
delegated registries. In hierarchically delegated registries,
entries nearest to top level have broad scope, but lower-level
entries have narrow scope. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
will encourage support for these principles in all delegations of
Internet identifiers.
The registry system is built on trust and mutual cooperation. The
use of the registries is voluntary and is not enforced by mandates or
certification policies. While the use of registries is voluntary, it
is noted that the success of the Internet creates enormous pressure
to use Internet protocols and the identifier registries associated
with them.
This document provides principles for the operation of IANA
registries, ensuring that protocol identifiers have consistent
meanings and interpretations across all implementations and
deployments, and thus providing the necessary trust in the IANA
registries.
2. Principles for the Operation of IANA Registries
The following key principles underscore the successful functioning of
the IANA registries, and they provide a foundation for trust in those
registries:
Ensure Uniqueness: The same protocol identifier must not be used for
more than one purpose.
Stable: Protocol identifier assignment must be lasting.
Predictable: The process for making assignments must not include
unexpected steps.
Public: The protocol identifiers must be made available in well-
known locations in a manner that makes them freely available to
everyone.
Open: The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier
assignment and registration must be open to all interested
parties.
Transparent: The protocol registries and their associated policies
should be developed in a transparent manner.
Accountable: Registry policy development and registry operations
need to be accountable to the affected community.
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
3. Discussion
The principles discussed in Section 2 provide trust and confidence in
the IANA registries. This section expands on these principles.
3.1. Ensuring Uniqueness, Stability, and Predictability
Protocol identifier assignment and registration must be unique,
stable, and predictable. Developers, vendors, customers, and users
depend on the registries for unique protocol identifiers that are
assigned in a stable and predictable manner.
A protocol identifier may only be reassigned for a different purpose
after due consideration of the impact of such a reassignment, and if
possible, with the consent of the original assignee.
Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those
involving a designated expert [RFC5226], a predictable process does
not require completion in a predetermined number of days. Rather, it
means that no unexpected steps are introduced in the process of
making an assignment.
3.2. Public
Once assigned, the protocol identifiers must be made available in a
manner that makes them freely available to everyone without
restrictions. The use of a consistent publication location builds
confidence in the registry. This does not mean that the publication
location can never change, but it does mean that it must change
infrequently and only after adequate prior notice.
3.3. Open and Transparent
The process that sets the policy for protocol identifier assignment
and registration must be open to all interested parties and operate
in a transparent manner.
When a registry is established, a policy is set for the addition of
new entries and the updating of existing entries. While making
additions and modifications, the registry operator may expose
instances where policies lack clarity. When this occurs, the
registry operator should provide helpful feedback to allow those
policies to be improved. In addition, the registry operator not
being involved in establishing registry policy avoids the risks
associated with (perceptions of) favoritism and unfairness.
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
Recognizing that some assignments involve judgment, such as those
involving a designated expert [RFC5226], the recommendations by
designated experts must be visible to the public to the maximum
extent possible and subject to challenge or appeal.
3.4. Accountable
The process that sets the policy for IANA registries and the
operation of the registries must be accountable to the parties that
rely on the protocol identifiers. Oversight is needed to ensure
these are properly serving the affected community.
In practice, accountability mechanisms for the registry operator may
be defined by contract, memoranda of understanding, or service level
agreements (SLAs). An oversight body uses these mechanisms to ensure
that the registry operator is meeting the needs of the affected
community. The oversight body is held accountable to the affected
community by vastly different mechanisms, for instance recall and
appeal processes.
For protocol parameters [RFC6220], the general oversight of the IANA
function is performed by the IAB as a chartered responsibility from
[RFC2850]. In addition, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
(IAOC), a body responsible for IETF administrative and financial
matters [BCP101], maintains an SLA with the current registry
operator, the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
(ICANN), thereby specifying the operational requirements with respect
to the coordination, maintenance, and publication of the protocol
parameter registries. Both the IAB and the IAOC are accountable to
the larger Internet community and are being held accountable through
the IETF Nomcom process [BCP10].
For the Internet Number Registries [RFC7249], oversight is performed
by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) as described RFC 7020
[RFC7020]. The RIRs are member-based organizations, and they are
accountable to the affected community by elected governance boards.
Furthermore, per agreement between the RIRs and ICANN, the policy
development for the global IANA number registries is coordinated by a
community-elected number council and subject to process review before
ratification by the ICANN Board of Trustees [ASOMOU].
4. Security Considerations
Internet Registries are critical to elements of Internet security.
The principles described in this document are necessary for the
Internet community to place trust in the IANA registries.
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
5. Informative References
[ASOMOU] ICANN, "ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU",
October 2004,
<http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>.
[BCP10] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
January 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10>.
[BCP101] Austein, R., Ed., and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
4071, April 2005.
Carpenter, B., Ed., and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, January 2006.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp101>
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, Ed.,
"Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP
39, RFC 2850, May 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2850>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6220] McPherson, D., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., Klensin, J., Ed.,
Huston, G., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board,
"Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter
Registry Operators", RFC 6220, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6220>.
[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.
[RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7249>.
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7500 TITLE* April 2015
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
Mary Barnes
Marc Blanchet
Joel Halpern
Ted Hardie
Joe Hildebrand
Russ Housley
Eliot Lear
Xing Li
Erik Nordmark
Andrew Sullivan
Dave Thaler
Brian Trammell
Contributors and Acknowledgements
This text has been developed within the IAB IANA Evolution Program.
The ideas and many text fragments, and corrections came from or were
inspired on comments from: Bernard Aboba, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jari Arkko,
Marcelo Bagnulo, Mark Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, David Conrad, Steve
Crocker, John Curran, Alissa Cooper, Leslie Daigle, Elise Gerich,
John Klensin, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Eliot Lear, Danny McPherson,
George Michaelson, Thomas Narten, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew
Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Brian Trammell, and Greg Wood. Further
inspiration and input was drawn from various meetings with IETF and
other Internet community (RIRs, ISOC, W3C, IETF, and IAB) leadership.
Please do not assume those acknowledged endorse the resulting text.
Authors' Addresses
Russ Housley
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Olaf Kolkman
Science Park 400
Amsterdam 1098 XH
The Netherlands
EMail: kolkman@isoc.org
Housley & Kolkman Informational [Page 7]