Network Working Group A. Baber, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Tanamal, Ed.
Obsoletes: 8126 (if approved) IANA
Intended status: Best Current Practice 27 February 2025
Expires: 31 August 2025
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-iana-ianabis-rfc8126bis-00
Abstract
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values
in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote
interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a
central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance
describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned,
as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made,
is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation
of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that
the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and
addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a
registry.
This is the fourth edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 8126.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 August 2025.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. For Updated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Specifying Change Control for Registries and
Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . 13
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Choosing a Registration Policy and Well-Known Policies . . . 17
4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . 27
4.12. Using Multiple Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.13. Provisional Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 32
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 34
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 35
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . 39
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations . . . . . 41
10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12. IESG Responsibilities and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 43
13. Registry Design Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . 51
A.1. 2025: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 8126 . . . 51
A.2. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . . 51
A.3. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 52
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2025) . . . . . . . . 53
B.2. Acknowledgments for the Third Edition (2017) . . . . . . 54
B.3. Acknowledgments from the Second Edition (2008) . . . . . 54
B.4. Acknowledgments from the First Edition (1998) . . . . . . 54
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values
in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote
interoperability, their allocations are coordinated by a central
record keeper known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
[RFC2860]. The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC0791] and media
types [RFC6838] are two examples of such coordinations.
In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a
field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value
with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment
(or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point,
protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a
registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used
interchangeably throughout this document.
To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, guidance
describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned,
as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made,
is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation
of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that
the guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the
various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.
Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the
specification with the title "IANA Considerations".
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA
The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to
provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and
instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in
other parts of the document; the IANA Considerations should refer to
these other sections by reference only (as needed). Using the IANA
Considerations section as primary technical documentation both hides
it from the target audience of the document and interferes with
IANA's review of the actions they need to take.
An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies
each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such
as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear
references to elsewhere in the document for other information.
The IANA actions are normally phrased as requests for, or
instructions to, IANA (such as, "IANA is asked to assign the value
TBD1 from the Frobozz registry..."); the RFC Editor will change those
sentences to reflect the actions taken ("IANA has assigned the value
83 from the Frobozz registry...").
1.2. For Updated Information
IANA maintains a web page at https://iana.org/help/protocol-
registration that includes additional clarification information
beyond what is provided here, such as minor updates and summary
guidance. Document authors should check that page. Any significant
updates to the best current practice will have to feed into updates
to BCP 26 (this document), which is definitive.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
1.3. A Quick Checklist Up Front
It's useful to be familiar with this document as a whole. But when
you return for quick reference, here are checklists for the most
common things you'll need to do and references to help with the less
common ones.
In general...
1. Put all the information that IANA will need to know into the
"IANA Considerations" section of your document (see Section 1.1).
2. Try to keep that section only for information to IANA and to
designated expert reviewers; put significant technical
information in the appropriate technical sections of the document
(see Section 1.1).
3. Note that the IESG has the authority to resolve issues with IANA
registrations (see Section 5.3). If you have any questions or
problems, you should consult your document shepherd and/or
working group chair, who may ultimately involve an Area Director
(see Section 3.3). See Section 12 for more information on IESG
responsibilities.
4. Contact IANA if you have any questions about writing an IANA
Considerations section. In particular, contact IANA if your
document may need special IANA resources such as if IANA would
have to host a new type of module, or coordinate with another
organization, or process a high volume of registration requests,
and so on.
If you are creating a new registry...
1. Give the registry a descriptive name and provide a brief
description of its use (see Section 2.2).
2. Identify the registry group that it should be part of (see
Section 2.1). Your document might create a new registry group;
that would need to be called out separately from the creation of
the registries in the group.
3. Clearly specify the information required in order to register new
items (see Section 2.2). Be sure to specify data types, lengths,
and valid ranges for fields.
4. Specify the initial set of items for the registry, if applicable
(see Section 2.2).
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
5. Make sure the change control policy for the registry is clear to
IANA, in case changes to the format or policies need to be made
later (see Sections 2.3 and 9.5).
6. Select a registration policy -- or a set of policies -- to use
for future registrations (see Section 4, and especially note
Sections 4.11 and 4.12).
7. If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert
(Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5
and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see
Section 5.3).
8. If any items or ranges in your registry need to be reserved for
special use or are otherwise unavailable for assignment, see
Section 6.
If you are registering into an existing registry...
1. Clearly identify the registry by its exact name and optionally by
its URL (see Section 3.1).
2. If the registry has multiple ranges from which assignments can be
made, make it clear which range is requested (see Section 3.1).
3. Unless an early allocation has already been secured, avoid using
specific values for numeric or bit assignments, and let IANA pick
a suitable value at registration time (see Section 3.1). This
will avoid registration conflicts among multiple documents.
4. If you need an early assignment during document development, see
[RFC7120]. If the registry does not require RFC publication, you
can request values from IANA directly without invoking the
process from RFC 7120.
5. For "reference" fields, use the document that provides the best
and most current documentation for the item being registered.
Include section numbers to make it easier for readers to locate
the relevant documentation (see Sections 3.1 and 7).
6. Use both the IANA website and the registry's reference
document(s) to determine what the registry requires so you can
accurately provide all the necessary information (see
Section 3.1). In particular, documents published after the
original one may add fields, change the registration
requirements, or other such actions that would affect your
registration.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
7. Use both the IANA website and the registry's reference
document(s) to find any special rules or processes there may be
for the registry, such as posting to a particular mailing list
for comment, and be sure to follow the process (see Section 3.1).
8. If the registration policy for the registry does not already
dictate the change control policy, make sure it's clear to IANA
what the change control policy is for the item, in case changes
to the registration need to be made later (see Section 9.5).
If you're writing a "bis" document or otherwise making older
documents obsolete, see Section 8.
If you need to change the format/contents or policies for an existing
registry, see Section 2.4.
If you need to update an existing registration, see Section 3.2.
If you need to close down a registry because it is no longer needed,
see Section 9.6.
2. Creating and Revising Registries
Defining a registry involves describing the namespaces to be created,
listing an initial set of assignments (if applicable), and
documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
When defining a registry, consider structuring the namespace in such
a way that only top-level assignments need to be made with central
coordination, and those assignments can delegate lower-level
assignments so coordination for them can be distributed. This
lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments, and is
particularly useful in situations where distributed coordinators have
better knowledge of their portion of the namespace and are better
suited to handling those assignments.
2.1. Organization of Registries
All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page
at https://www.iana.org/protocols. That page lists registries in
protocol category groups, placing related registries together and
making it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary
information. Clicking on the title of one of the registries on the
IANA Protocol Registries page will take the reader to the details
page for that registry.
Registry A collection of entries whose assigned, available, and/or
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
reserved values are presented in a single table. Entries in the
table may also be referred to as "assignments", "allocations"
(that is, allocations from a pool of values), or "registrations"
(a term that is more commonly applied to strings). Entries
consist of at least an identifier and a reference to a
specification and/or one or more responsible parties.
Registry group IANA uses this term to describe a set of related
registries. All registries in a registry group have the same base
URL; each registry has its own URL fragment identifier. When
creating a registry, document authors must tell IANA which
registry group it belongs in, citing the name of the group and the
base URL. If no appropriate registry group exists, the document
must create one. While most protocols require only a single
registry group (which is typically named for the protocol and its
abbreviation), multiple groups might be appropriate. Protocol
category groups listed in the "Protocol Registries" page almost
always consist of registries from a single registry group, but
exceptions can exist if necessary.
Subregistry A registry "for" one or more registrations in a parent
registry. Examples include "Error Code 1 Subcodes," a subregistry
for value 1 ("Common Header Parse Error") in the "GIST Error
Codes" registry [RFC5971], and "Code Values for RADIUS Attribute
241.1, Frag-Status" [RFC7499].
In the past, documents have sometimes referred to registry groups as
"top-level registries," or referred to the groups as "registries" and
called all of the tables within them "subregistries." However, the
term "subregistry" is more useful as an indicator of a parent-child
relationship between registries, and "top-level registry" suggests a
sort of permanence or natural order that doesn't reflect the fact
that working groups can choose to reorganize those groups. With AD
approval, IANA can move registries and expand or delete groups,
leaving tombstones and pointers as appropriate. (If one URL replaces
another, IANA will make sure the original will always redirect to the
new one.)
IANA strongly prefers that the registry of "Foo" types be named
simply "Foo Types", rather than "Foo Type Registry". A registry
group for the BAR protocol should be named "Beyond All Recognition
(BAR)" rather than "BAR Parameters." An exception for the former
might be made when, for example, several widely-used unofficial
versions of the registry exist outside the IETF; it might be useful
to indicate that the version on the IANA website is the official one.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (serving as a repository for registered values) must
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the
IANA Considerations section or referenced from it.
Documents that come from the Independent Stream through the
Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) may have special handling; see
[RFC8726].
In particular, such instructions must include:
The name of the registry
This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to
in future documents that allocate values from the new space. The
full name (which can include an acronym) must be provided; you
cannot leave this to IANA to determine.
It is highly desirable that the name not be easily confused with
the name of another registry. IANA's preferred solution is to use
the protocol name as a prefix if possible. Examples of registries
that use this naming pattern include "TLS Cipher Suites", "MASQUE
URI Suffixes", and "HTTP/2 Settings". Each of these are part of a
registry group which has the protocol name in the registry group
name.
The name of the registry group
When creating a registry, the group that it is a part of must be
identified by its full name. See Section 2.1.
Providing a URL that precisely identifies that group helps IANA
understand the request.
Required information for registrations
This tells registrants what information they have to include in
their registration requests. Some registries require only the
requested value and a reference to a document where use of the
value is defined. Other registries require a more detailed
registration template that describes relevant security
considerations, internationalization considerations, and other
such information.
When a template is required, consider whether IANA should post
every field from the template in the registry, or post only
specified fields, or post only specified fields in the registry
while also providing a link to the template (typically as a plain-
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
text document) hosted on the IANA website. Examples of the latter
approach include the URI scheme [RFC7595] and media type [RFC6838]
registries (at the time this document is published).
Applicable registration policy
The policy that will apply to all future requests for
registration. See Section 4.
Size, format, and syntax of registry entries
What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements
on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations
on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry
values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should
specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in
hexadecimal, or in some other format.
Strings are expected to be ASCII, and it should be clearly
specified whether case matters, and whether, for example, strings
should be shown in the registry in uppercase or lowercase.
Strings that represent protocol parameters will rarely, if ever,
need to contain non-ASCII characters. If non-ASCII characters are
really necessary, instructions should make it very clear that they
are allowed and that the non-ASCII characters should be
represented as Unicode characters using the "(U+XXXX)" convention.
Anyone creating such a registry should think carefully about this
and consider internationalization advice such as that in
[RFC7564], Section 10.
Initial assignments and reservations
Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In
addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use",
"Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be
indicated.
If IANA is to assign numeric values, the IANA Considerations
section must specify the range of values available for assignment,
including the lower and upper bounds. The text should say whether
to use decimal, hexadecimal, binary, or octal representation. The
representation should be used consistently throughout the
registry.
For example, a document might specify a new registry by including:
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
X. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), and assigns a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters>
[RFC2132] [RFC2939]:
Data
Tag Name Length Meaning
---- ---- ------ -------
TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server
The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which
IANA is to create and maintain a new registry titled
"DHCP FooBar FooType Values." Initial values for the
DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments
are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26]. Assignments consist
of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its associated value.
Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition
---- ------------------------ ----------
0 Reserved
1 Frobnitz RFCXXXX, Section y.1
2 NitzFrob RFCXXXX, Section y.2
3-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------
For examples of documents that establish registries, consult
[RFC9546], [RFC9516], and [RFC9454].
2.3. Specifying Change Control for Registries and Registrations
Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need
to be changed after they are created. The process of making such
changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make
the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream,
change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via
the IESG. The same is true for registrations made by IETF-stream
RFCs.
When a registry includes a "Change Controller," "Assignee," or
"Registrant" field (or similar), going forward, IETF-stream RFC-based
registrations should name the IETF, except where the reference
document for the registry requires that the IESG be named instead (as
in the port [RFC6335] and IETF XML [RFC3688] registries, among
others).
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Because registries can be created and registrations can be made
outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desirable to have change
control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change
control policies is always helpful.
It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created by
documents outside of the IETF stream clearly specify a change control
policy and a change controller. It is also advised that registries
that allow registrations from outside the IETF stream include, for
each value, the designation of a change controller for that value.
If the definition or reference for a registered value ever needs to
change, or if a registered value needs to be deprecated, it is
critical that IANA know who is authorized to make the change. For
example, the Media Types registry [RFC6838] includes a "Change
Controller" in its registration template. See also Section 9.5.
2.4. Revising Existing Registries
Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of
an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created
explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when
creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes
reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed
guidance for handling assignments in the registry or detailed
instructions about the changes required.
If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions
need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing
registrations. That populating might be by specifying the new
entries itself or by setting a column-specific registration procedure
(such as Expert Review) that allows the information to be assembled
and provided to IANA after publication. Other changes may require
similar clarity.
%% QUESTION FOR IANABIS: Does a document that modifies a registry
have to have the same status as the document that created the
registry, or does the change just need to be approved by the change
controller? If the change controller is the IETF, the IESG can
override anyway. %%
Under some circumstances, such as with a straightforward change that
is clearly needed (such as adding a "status" column), or when an
earlier error needs to be corrected, the IESG may approve an update
to a registry without requiring a new RFC. Example documents that
updated the guidelines for assignments in pre-existing registries
include: [RFC6195], [RFC6929], and [RFC8615].
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations
Often, documents request an assignment in an existing registry (one
created by a previously published document).
Such documents should clearly identify the registry into which each
value is to be registered. Use the exact registry name as listed on
the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where the registry is defined.
When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely
identify the registry is helpful (see Section 2.2).
There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making
new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from
the references. However, if multiple assignment policies might
apply, as in registries with different ranges that have different
policies, it is important to make it clear which range is being
requested, so that IANA will know which policy applies and can assign
a value in the correct range.
Be sure to provide all the information required for a registration,
and follow any special processes that are set out for the registry.
Registries sometimes require the completion of a registration
template for registration or ask registrants to post their request to
a particular mailing list for discussion prior to registration. Look
up the registry's reference document: the required information and
special processes should be documented there.
Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the
document is approved; drafts should not specify final values.
Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used
consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be
registered a different placeholder. The RFC Editor will replace the
placeholder names with the IANA-assigned values. When drafts need to
specify numeric values for testing or early implementations, they
will either request early allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values
that have already been set aside for testing or experimentation (if
the registry in question allows that without explicit assignment).
It is important that drafts not declare that specific numeric values
will be assigned to them before IANA has actually made the
assignments. A draft can request a specific value in the IANA
Considerations section, and IANA will accommodate such requests when
possible, but the proposed number might have been assigned to some
other use by the time the draft is approved.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
If a draft does request a specific value, the fact that the value has
not been secured and could be assigned for another purpose before the
draft has been approved should be indicated as clearly as possible.
For example, if value "5" is preferred, and the value is presented in
a table, it should be listed as "5 (suggested)" or "5 (if
available)."
Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the
document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will
consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a
different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string
values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the
expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value
instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows
the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing
the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the
final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version
of the draft, for example.
For some registries, there is a long-standing policy prohibiting
assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis.
For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there
is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document
is intended to change those policies or prevent their future
application.
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
of a DHCPv6 option number:
IANA is asked to assign an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS
Recursive 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.
The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the
document as appropriate. Including section numbers is especially
useful when the reference document is large; the section numbers will
make it easier for those searching the reference document to find the
relevant information.
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to
include a summary table of the additions/changes. It is also helpful
for this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear
on the IANA web site. For example:
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar this RFC, Section 3.2
TBD2 Gumbo this RFC, Section 3.3
TBD3 Banana this RFC, Section 3.4
If the authors feel that including the full table of changes is too
verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table in the
draft, but may include a note asking that the table be removed prior
to publication of the final RFC.
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations
Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations
contain additional information that may need to be updated over time.
For example, media types and URN namespaces [RFC8141] typically
include more information than just the registered value itself, and
may need updates to items such as point-of-contact information,
security issues, pointers to updates, and literature references.
In such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state
who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration.
Depending on the registry, it may be appropriate to specify one or
more of:
* Letting registrants and/or nominated change controllers update
their own registrations, subject to the same constraints and
review as with new registrations.
* Allowing attachment of comments to the registration. This can be
useful in cases where others have significant objections to a
registration, but the author does not agree to change the
registration.
* Designating the IETF (as represented by the IESG), a designated
expert, or another entity as having the right to change the
registrant associated with a registration and any requirements or
conditions on doing so. This ensures that necessary updates can
be made even if the original registrant cannot be reached.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures
Experience has shown that the documented IANA considerations for
individual protocols do not always adequately cover the reality of
registry operation or are not sufficiently clear. 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 perform a registration in advance of actual RFC
publication.
In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted
authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments
on a case-by-case basis.
The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures
or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA
considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific
cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made,
but updating the IANA process beforehand is too onerous.
When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a
strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should
be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it.
IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or
intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where
policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter
issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration
requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive.
3.4. Early Allocations
IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for
publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a
value is important for the development of a technology, for example,
when early implementations are created while the document is still
under development.
IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some
cases. See [RFC7120] for details. It is usually not necessary to
explicitly mark a registry as allowing early allocation, because the
general rules will apply.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
%% NOTE FOR IANABIS: This paragraph will likely change. It is not
ordinarily possible to create registries before a document has been
approved for publication. IANA is reviewing a procedure that will
allow make early registry creation available to working groups that
need to update a registry that appears in a yet-to-be-approved draft
with registrations that cannot be recorded in that draft. %%
4. Choosing a Registration Policy and Well-Known Policies
%% NOTE FOR IANABIS: This list are some topics and suggestions that
will be covered in future versions of this draft.
* Issues with "Specification Required":
- Do I-Ds that are named with a specific version number count as
permanent? There are active discussions about this among
designated experts, and in the wider community. For example,
RFC 8447 (for TLS) says yes, and it is common in smi-numbers.
Is this even an appropriate question for this document, or
should there be stream-specific recommendations?
- "Specification Required" is generally considered to be stricter
than "Expert Review," as it typically involves reviewing
assignments for other SDOs, but specifications can be quite
lightweight (such as webpages, Github gists, and so on).
Should there be tiers of "Specification Required"? If a
specification needs any level of review at all, an expert has
to do it.
- Are there other limits on what constitutes a valid
specifications; if so, would that be problematic for existing
registries?
* Suggestion for "First Come First Served": Add a "First Come First
Served with URL" to indicate that a specification needs to exist,
but IANA will not review it. IANA can provide a general sanity
check such as for the existence of content at the URL, but not for
its content.
* Issue with "With Expert Review": There are already 80 registries
that require both an RFC (via Standards Action, IETF Review, or
RFC Required) and an expert review. RFC 8126 mentions in passing
that this is acceptable, but it would be good to enshrine it and
specify a name for it. This addition to RFC 8126 would provide
the reason for doing both, such as that IANA submits review
requests to experts only when that procedure is specified.
Standard names should be chosen for the combined procedures.
Candidates include "Standards Action With Expert Review", "IETF
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Review With Expert Review", and "RFC and Expert Review Required".
The term "Augmented" has also been suggested, either as a name for
the category or for use within procedure names (such as "Standards
Action Augmented"). (Bikeshedding will likely abound.) Also, it
will probably have to be noted here that (as 8126 states) the IESG
can override experts.
* Should we standardize a two-tier system -- an IETF Review
equivalent paired with an equivalent of first-come-first served --
other than "Permanent" and "Provisional", as currently seen in URI
schemes, message headers, and so on? %%
A registration policy is the policy that controls how new assignments
in a registry are accepted. There are several issues to consider
when defining the registration policy.
If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be
made carefully to prevent exhaustion.
Even when the space is essentially unlimited, it is still often
desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in
order to:
* prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For
example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be
desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings
that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for
example).
* provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and
is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal
review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent
assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not
actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an
essentially equivalent service already exists). IANA cannot
review requests or specifications for technical content.
Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact
interoperability and security. See [RFC6709].
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no
potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can
usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In
such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is
provided all of the information a non-technical registrar would need
in order to screen requests, and it is able to do so without
exercising subjective judgement. For example, IANA can check a
string for illegal characters, if instructed to do so, but cannot
determine whether a specification addresses a specific topic.
When this is not the case, some level of review is required.
However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of
registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be
IETF participants; requests often come from other standards
organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards,
from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for
example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily
difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other
resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial.
While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered
(e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for
which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in
many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more
important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time
and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a
registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements
actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on
the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued.
Therefore, it is important to think specifically about the
registration policy, and not just pick one arbitrarily nor copy text
from another document. Working groups and other document developers
should use care in selecting appropriate registration policies when
their documents create registries. They should select the least
strict policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific
justification for policies that require significant community
involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification
Required, in terms of the well-known policies). The needs here will
vary from registry to registry, and, indeed, over time, and this BCP
will not be the last word on the subject.
The following policies are defined for common usage. These cover a
range of typical policies that have been used to describe the
procedures for assigning new values in a namespace. It is not
strictly required that documents use these terms; the actual
requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and
unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly recommended
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
because their meanings are widely understood. Newly-minted policies,
including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated
with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies
are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is
included as to why that is the case. The terms are fully explained
in the following subsections.
1. Private Use
2. Experimental Use
3. Hierarchical Allocation
4. First Come First Served
5. Expert Review
6. Specification Required
7. RFC Required
8. IETF Review
9. Standards Action
10. IESG Approval
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a namespace
into multiple categories, with assignments within each category
handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into
two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or
Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique
assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a
namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in
place for different ranges and different use cases.
Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in
parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances.
For more discussion of that topic, see Section 4.12.
Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel:
LDAP [RFC4520]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in
the subsections below)
MPLS Pseudowire Types Registry [RFC4446]
4.1. Private Use
Private Use is 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. IANA does not record assignments from registries
or ranges with this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA
to review them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use
of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
the intended scope of use).
Examples:
Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939]
Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246]
4.2. Experimental Use
Experimental Use is similar to Private Use, but with the purpose
being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details.
IANA does not record assignments from registries or ranges with this
policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and
assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability.
Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is not appropriate for
documents to select explicit values from registries or ranges with
this policy. Specific experiments will select a value to use during
the experiment.
When code points are set aside for Experimental Use, it's important
to make clear any expected restrictions on experimental scope. For
example, say whether it's acceptable to run experiments using those
code points over the open Internet or whether such experiments should
be confined to more closed environments. See [RFC6994] for an
example of such considerations.
Example:
Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP
Headers [RFC4727]
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation
With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given
control over part of the namespace and can assign values in that part
of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels of the
namespace according to one of the other policies.
Examples:
* DNS names - IANA manages the top-level domains (TLDs), and, as
[RFC1591] says:
Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally,
under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is,
many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and
any further structure is up to the individual organizations.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
* Object Identifiers - defined by ITU-T recommendation X.208.
According to http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid, some registries
include
- IANA, which hands out OIDs under the "Private Enterprises"
branch,
- ANSI, which hands out OIDs under the "US Organizations" branch,
and
- BSI, which hands out OIDs under the "UK Organizations" branch.
* URN namespaces - IANA registers URN Namespace IDs (NIDs
[RFC8141]), and the organization registering an NID is responsible
for allocations of URNs within that namespace.
4.4. First Come First Served
For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to
anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive
review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed
and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must
include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of
contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address)
and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional
information specific to the type of value requested may also need to
be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, IANA
generally assigns the next in-sequence unallocated value, but other
values may be requested and assigned if an extenuating circumstance
exists. With names, specific text strings can usually be requested.
IANA will add a change controller field to all registries that use
the First Come First Served procedure. Having a change controller
for each entry for these types of registrations makes authorization
of future modifications more clear. See Section 2.3.
It is important that changes to the registration of a First Come
First Served code point retain compatibility with the current usage
of that code point, so changes need to be made with care. IANA
cannot review change requests for content, but will check that the
request has been authorized by the change controller's listed contact
or the change controller itself, and the change controller should
not, in most cases, be requesting incompatible changes nor
repurposing a registered code point. See also Sections 9.4 and 9.5.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
A working group or any other entity that is developing a protocol
based on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely
careful that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use
of the code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs
to change to a different code point (and register that use at the
appropriate time).
It is also important to understand that First Come First Served
really has no filtering. Essentially, any well-formed request is
accepted.
If a specification needs to be checked for any quality other than
availability, the First Come First Served procedure is not
appropriate, and the Specification Required procedure (which includes
an expert review) should be used instead. If only a lightweight
review is required, that can be noted in a subsection addressed to
the designated experts.
Examples:
SASL mechanism names [RFC4422]
LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520]
4.5. Expert Review
For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a designated
expert (see Section 5) is required. While this does not necessarily
require formal documentation, information needs to be provided with
the request for the designated expert to evaluate. The registry's
definition needs to make clear to registrants what information is
necessary. The actual process for requesting registrations is
administered by IANA (see Section 1.2 for details).
(This policy was also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions
of this document. The current term is "Expert Review".)
The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the
registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be
considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a
request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense
of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the
registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional
circumstances only.
Thorough understanding of Section 5 is important when deciding on an
Expert Review policy and designing the guidance to the designated
expert.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Good examples of guidance to designated experts:
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748], Sections 6 and
7.2
North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using
BGP [RFC7752], Section 5.1
IANA will add a change controller field to all registries that use
the Expert Review procedure. See Section 2.3.
Examples:
EAP Method Types [RFC3748]
HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169]
URI schemes [RFC7595]
GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]
4.6. Specification Required
For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the
normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review
the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently
stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to
allow interoperable implementations.
The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a
document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable
long after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an
RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but
Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a
document published outside of the RFC path, including informal
documentation.
For RFC publication, formal review by the designated expert is still
requested, but the normal RFC review process is expected to provide
the necessary review for interoperability. The designated expert's
review is still important, but it's equally important to note that
when there is IETF consensus, the expert can sometimes be "in the
rough" (see also the last paragraph of Section 5.4).
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough
understanding of Section 5 is important.
When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification
Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert
Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion.
Examples:
Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers
[RFC4124]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246]
ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795]
4.7. RFC Required
With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with
associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need
not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an
RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, IAB, or Independent Submission streams
[RFC5742]).
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently
Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
Examples:
DNSSEC DNS Security Algorithm Numbers [RFC6014]
Media Control Channel Framework registries [RFC6230]
DANE TLSA Certificate Usages [RFC6698]
4.8. IETF Review
(Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this
document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only
through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded
through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group documents
[RFC2026] [RFC5378], have gone through IETF Last Call, and have been
approved by the IESG as having IETF consensus.
The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be
reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working
groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure
that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect
interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an
inappropriate or damaging manner.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently
Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
Examples:
IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025]
Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005]
TLS Extension Types [RFC5246]
4.9. Standards Action
For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through
Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs in the IETF Stream.
Examples:
BGP message types [RFC4271]
Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246]
DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340]
4.10. IESG Approval
New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no
requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has
the discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on
a case-by-case basis.
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case";
indeed, it has seldom been used in practice. Rather, it is intended
to be available in conjunction with other policies as a fallback
mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval
mechanisms cannot be employed in a timely fashion or for some other
compelling reason. IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the
public review processes implied by other policies that could have
been employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be
appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is desired and there
is strong consensus (such as from a working group) for making the
assignment.
Before approving a request, the IESG might consider consulting the
community, via a "call for comments" that provides as much
information as is reasonably possible about the request.
Examples:
Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers [RFC5237]
IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228]
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275]
4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies
Because the well-known policies benefit from both community
experience and wide understanding, their use is encouraged, and the
creation of new policies needs to be accompanied by reasonable
justification.
It is also acceptable to cite one or more well-known policies and
include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should
be taken into account by the review process.
For example, for media-type registrations [RFC6838], a number of
different situations are covered that involve the use of IETF Review
and Specification Required, while also including specific additional
criteria the designated expert should follow. This is not meant to
represent a registration procedure, but to show an example of what
can be done when special circumstances need to be covered.
The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards
Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness
(using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):
4. First Come First Served
No review, minimal documentation.
5 and 6 (of equal strictness).
5. Expert Review
Expert review with sufficient documentation for review.
6. Specification Required
Significant stable public documentation sufficient for
interoperability.
7. RFC Required
Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream.
8. IETF Review
RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards
Track.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
9. Standards Action
RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track or BCP only.
Examples of situations that might merit IETF Review or Standards
Action include the following:
* When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two
bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases,
allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and
agreed to by community consensus could too quickly deplete the
allowable values.
* When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or
modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One
example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options
that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict
policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the
latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that
change the semantics of existing operations.
* When there are security implications with respect to the resource,
a thorough review is needed to ensure that the new usage is sound.
Examples of this include lists of acceptable hashing and
cryptographic algorithms, and assignment of transport ports in the
system range.
When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or
change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert
Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for
justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been
considered and that the more strict policy is the right one.
Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document
their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in
the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup).
Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected
policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG.
When specifications are revised, registration policies should be
reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set.
4.12. Using Multiple Policies
In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration
policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process
might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process
would have a different policy applied.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy that requires
RFC publication ("Standards Action," "IETF Review," and/or "RFC
Required") sometimes, and a policy that requires expert review
without RFC publication ("Expert Review" or "Specification Required")
at other times. In addition, a "less valuable" range of values might
be made available via the "First Come First Served" procedure.
The alternative requires either that all requests come through RFCs
or that all requests in RFCs go through review by the designated
expert.
This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the
registry is created, for example:
IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" under
the "Fruit Parameters" group. New registrations will be permitted
through either the IETF Review policy or the Specification
Required policy {{BCP26}}. The latter should be used only for
registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. Registrations
requested in IETF documents will be subject to IETF review.
4.13. Provisional Registrations
Some existing registries have policies that allow provisional
registration: see URI Schemes [RFC7595] and Email Header Fields
[RFC3864]. Registrations that are designated as provisional are
usually defined as being more readily created, changed, reassigned,
moved to another status, or removed entirely. URI Schemes, for
example, allow provisional registrations to be made with incomplete
information.
Allowing provisional registration ensures that the primary goal of
maintaining a registry -- avoiding collisions between incompatible
semantics -- is achieved without the side effect of "endorsing" the
protocol mechanism the provisional value is used for. Provisional
registrations for codepoints that are ultimately standardized can be
promoted to permanent status. The criteria that are defined for
converting a provisional registration to permanent will likely be
more strict than those that allowed the provisional registration.
If your registry does not have a practical limit on codepoints,
perhaps adding the option for provisional registrations might be
right for that registry as well.
5. Designated Experts
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts
Discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical feedback,
but opinions often vary and discussions may continue for some time
without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate in
all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such
discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated
expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an
assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual
who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and
returning a recommendation to IANA.
It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated
experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert
to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards
requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the
expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether
or not to make the assignment or registration. In most cases, the
registrants do not work directly with the designated experts, unless
the experts wish to contact them (with IANA in copy, if they wish for
IANA to retain records of the details of the request). The list of
designated experts for a registry is listed in the registry.
It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the
time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of
that topic, see Section 4.12.
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert
The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate
review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow,
depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert.
This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts,
discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working
group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc.
Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as
documented with the protocol that creates or uses the namespace. See
the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for
specific examples.
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions
to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to
be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are
expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures,
or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted
norms such as those in Section 5.3. Designated experts are generally
not expected to be "gatekeepers", setting out to make registrations
difficult to obtain, unless the guidance in the defining document
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
specifies that they should act as such. Absent stronger guidance,
the experts should be evaluating registration requests for
completeness, interoperability, and conflicts with existing protocols
and options.
It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some
registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a
request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups,
acting only when the primary expert is unavailable. In registries
with a pool of experts, the pool may have a single chair responsible
for defining how requests are to be assigned to and reviewed by
experts. If a registry receives a relatively high volume of
requests, IANA might assign requests to individual members in
sequential or approximate random order. More often, IANA will send
requests to the group of experts, and consider the review complete
when a certain number of replies have been received, as specified by
the group itself. The document defining the registry can, if it's
appropriate for the situation, specify how the group should work --
for example, it might be appropriate to specify rough consensus on a
mailing list, within a related working group or among a pool of
designated experts.
In cases of disagreement among multiple experts, it is the
responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation
to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among
experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating
body may need to step in to resolve the problem.
When designated experts have a conflict of interest for a particular
review (if they are, for example, authors or significant proponents
of a specification related to the registration under review), those
experts should recuse themselves. In the event that all the
designated experts are conflicted, they should ask that a temporary
expert be designated for the conflicted review. The responsible AD
may then handle the review or appoint someone to take it.
This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to
documents in the IETF stream only. If other streams want to use
registration policies that require designated experts, it is up to
those streams (or those documents) to specify how those designated
experts are appointed and managed. What is described below, with
management by the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF
Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed
by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area
Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or
updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when
the first registration request is received. Because experts
originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will
appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any
designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion.
The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1,
applies to issues that arise with the designated expert team. For
this purpose, the designated expert team takes the place of the
working group in that description.
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews
In the years since [RFC2434] was published and put to use, experience
has led to the following observations:
* A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally
within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex
ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for
those needing assignments, such as when products need code points
to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed
under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester
and IANA should have some transparency into the process if an
answer cannot be given quickly.
* If a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within
the period specified by the IANA MoU with the IETF (currently 30
days), either with a response or with a reasonable explanation for
the delay (some requests may be particularly complex), IANA must
raise the issue with the IESG. If a designated expert being non-
responsive recurs often, it causes problems by delaying
evaluations and assignments. In such a case, the IESG should take
appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and
accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a new expert.
* The designated expert is not required to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a
shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert
must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear
guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing
an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where
there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be
that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling
reason to the contrary (and see also Section 5.4). Reasons that have
been used to deny requests have included these:
* Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points
should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number
of code points is made and a single code point is the norm.
* Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure
interoperability.
* The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the
extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally
understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended and
would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not
the intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a
personal preference nature". Instead, they refer to significant
differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security
model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message
type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed
systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar
result), etc.
* The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
* The extension would conflict with one under active development by
the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster
interoperability.
Documents must not name the designated expert(s) in the document
itself; instead, any suggested names should be relayed to the
appropriate Area Director at the time the document is sent to the
IESG for approval. This is usually done in the document shepherd
writeup.
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing
list, its address should be specified.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle
Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular
point in time and represents review of a particular version of the
document. Unless the authors or chairs have already requested and
obtained registration, IANA will initiate reviews during IETF Last
Call. And while rereviews might be done when it's acknowledged that
the documentation of the registered item has changed substantially,
making sure that rereview happens requires attention and care.
It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or
even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the
designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document
were rereviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration.
It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area
Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such
changes need to be checked.
When a registration requested by a document requires expert review,
the review by the designated expert needs to be timely, submitted
before the IESG evaluates the document. The IESG should generally
not hold the document up waiting for a late review. It is also not
intended for the expert review to override IETF consensus: the IESG
should consider the review in its own evaluation, as it would do for
other Last Call reviews.
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology
The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of
assignments:
Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in
Section 4.1.
Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described
in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for
any particular use.
Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment
via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that
any values that are not registered are unassigned and
available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to
explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is
distinctly different from "Reserved".
Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Reserved values are held for special uses, such as to extend
the namespace when it becomes exhausted. "Reserved" is also
sometimes used to designate values that had been assigned
but are no longer in use, keeping them set aside as long as
other unassigned values are available. Note that this is
distinctly different from "Unassigned".
Reserved values can be released for assignment by the change
controller for the registry (this is often the IETF, as
represented by the IESG, for registries created by RFCs in
the IETF stream).
%% QUESTION FOR IANABIS: Sometimes authors want to describe
values as "Reserved (not to be assigned)." Is "Reserved"
enough? Should we say here that authors can specify
"Reserved (not to be released for assignment)" but the
latter part is not needed? Should we tell authors that they
should instead document the reason for the reservation in
the draft if it's vital that it not be released? Would it
be accurate to say that authors expect that only values
reserved for future extension, private use, and experimental
use might be released or moved around? Should we revive
"Reserved for Future Extension"? The problem with that is
that so many values could be re-labeled that way, and using
that string in some cases would imply that it doesn't apply
when it doesn't appear. %%
Known Unregistered Use: It's known that the assignment or range
is in use without having been defined in accordance with
reasonable practice. Documentation for use of the
assignment or range may be unavailable, inadequate, or
conflicting. This is a warning against use, as well as an
alert to network operators who might see these values in use
on their networks.
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries
Usually, registries and registry entries include references to
documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these
references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details
necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document
created the registry or entry. Therefore:
* If a document registers an item that is defined and explained
elsewhere, the registered reference should be to the document
containing the definition, not to the document that is merely
performing the registration.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
* If the registered item is defined and explained in the current
document, it is important to include sufficient information to
enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper
implementation.
* If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific
section of the reference document, it is useful to include a
section reference. For example, "[RFC4637], Section 3.2", rather
than just "[RFC4637]".
* For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide
information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the
creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the
registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the
process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new
registrants or designated experts, and other such related
information. But note that, while it's important to include this
information in the document, it needn't all be in the IANA
Considerations section. See Section 1.1.
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents
On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of
the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as
when RFC 4637 is to be obsoleted by draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis. When
the original document created registries and/or registered entries,
there is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section
in the "bis" document.
If a "bis" document replicates all or part of the original IANA
Considerations section, the new actions and the effects on existing
registries and registrations can be hard to identify. Instead, the
"bis" document should provide a clear, hopefully brief summary or
list at the beginning or end of the IANA Considerations section.
Setting this text off in its own subsection called "New IANA Actions"
would be useful, especially if the information appears at the end of
the IANA Considerations section.
A "New IANA Actions" subsection must specify whether all references
to the original document should be replaced. If any should remain
untouched, name those. If the list of registrations that is being
updated is shorter, it is acceptable to just name those instead.
If references should not be updated, consider whether IANA should
also label those registrations "obsolete" or "deprecated." IANA will
then list the new obsoleting/deprecating document as an additional
reference while leaving the original reference intact.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Because a document that requests an assignment can list a different
specification in that assignment's reference field, the "bis"
document may need to account for assignments that refer to the
original document, but that were registered by a later document.
IANA can supply a list of registry groups that contain references to
the original document.
An example of a document that tells IANA how to update or deprecate
existing references and registrations is [RFC9012]. %% NOTE TO
IANABIS: More examples may be added here. %%
In general, if the registrations specify the original document as a
reference, those registrations should be updated to point to the
current (not obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that
will mean changing the reference to be the "bis" document.
There will, though, be times when a document updates another, but
does not make it obsolete, and the definitive reference is changed
for some items but not for others. Be sure that the references
always point to the correct, current documentation for each item.
For example, suppose RFC 4637 registered the "BANANA" flag in the
"Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is
in Section 3.2.
The current registry might look, in part, like this:
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC4637], Section 3.2
If draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis obsoletes RFC 4637 and, because of some
rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA
Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this:
IANA is asked to change the registration information for the
BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the
following:
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1
In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the
original RFC and the document organization has not changed the
registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do
this:
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Because this document obsoletes RFC 4637, IANA is asked to change
all registration information that references [RFC4637] to instead
reference [[this RFC]].
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to
other documents, then the registration information should be changed
to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation
references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document for
registries or registered items that are still in current use. For
registries or registered items that are no longer in current use, it
will usually make sense to leave the references pointing to the old
document -- the last current reference for the obsolete items. The
main point is to make sure that the reference pointers are as useful
and current as is reasonable, and authors should consider that as
they write the IANA Considerations for the new document. As always:
do the right thing, and there is flexibility to allow for that.
It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding
updating references, especially in cases where some references need
to be updated and others do not.
When deciding how much, if any, of the original document's IANA
Considerations section should be included in a new IANA
Considerations section, consider what the registry user might be
looking for when they consult the new reference for the registry.
If the original document included registration instructions, for
example, and the new document does not, an applicant unfamiliar with
RFC obsoletion might not guess that there were any instructions to
find. If you don't want to repeat information provided in the
earlier document, the IANA Considerations section should point users
to the appropriate section in the previous document.
9. Miscellaneous Issues
9.1. 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 the 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
documents should, after the authors confirm that this is the case,
include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no IANA actions.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left
in the document for the record: it makes it clear later on that the
document explicitly said that no IANA actions were needed (and that
it wasn't just omitted).
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment
policy, IANA will work with the IESG to decide what policy is
appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always be initiated
through the normal IETF consensus process, or through the IESG when
appropriate.
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to
register or otherwise administer namespace assignments must provide
guidelines for administration of the namespace.
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations
Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a
namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is
being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The
IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described
in this document need to be applied to such cases, and it might not
always be possible to formally assign the desired value. In the
absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be
reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original
assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of
such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation
with the IESG is advised.
This is part of the reason for the advice in Section 3.1 about using
placeholder values, such as "TBD1", during document development:
problems are often caused by the open use of unregistered values
after results from well-meant, early implementations, where the
implementations retained the use of developmental code points that
never proceeded to a final IANA assignment.
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values
Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because
doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems
still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely
difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use
of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is
running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it
may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
reclaiming unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be
considered:
* Attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a
value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if
so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never
shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be
known that a value was never actually used at all.)
* Reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence
of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions
should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value
is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs
the cost of a hostile reclamation. IESG Approval is needed in
this case.
* It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit
comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF
process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed
some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942].
* It may be useful to differentiate between revocation, release, and
transfer. Revocation occurs when IANA removes an assignment in
accordance with IETF instructions (whether the source is the IESG,
a designated expert, working group chairs, or a document); release
occurs when the assignee initiates that removal; and transfer
occurs when either revocation or release is coupled with immediate
reassignment. It may be useful to specify procedures for each of
these or to explicitly prohibit combinations that are not desired.
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner
Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative
contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as
contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what
role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this
item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the
individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual
was acting for?
This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed
jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might
want to update the registration. IANA has no way to know what
company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take the
registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream
owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision.
But in other cases, there is no recourse.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an
"Assignee" or "Owner" field (also referred to as "Change Controller")
that can be used to address this situation, giving IANA clear
guidance as to the actual owner of the registration. This is
strongly advised for all registries that might ever be open to
assignments to parties outside of the IETF, and IANA has begun to
automatically add a change controller field for registries that use
the First Come First Served (Section 4.4), Expert Review
(Section 4.5), and Specification Required (Section 4.6) policies.
Alternatively, if no change controller field is present,
organizations can put an organizational role into the "Contact" or
"Reference" field in order to make their ownership clear.
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations
%% NOTE TO IANABIS: This document should define what "deprecated" and
"obsolete" mean. %%
Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further
registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations
will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be
valid, and registrations already in the registry can still be
updated.
A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication
that the information in the registry is no longer in current use.
When a registry is closed or declared obsolete, IANA will update its
registration procedure field to indicate that the registry has been
closed and list the document that closes it as an additional
reference for the registry itself, without removing any existing
reference(s). The document can also provide a note to be added to
the registry by IANA, such as if the document authors have additional
useful information about the change.
Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer
in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended).
Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to
normal change controls (see Section 2.3). Any closure, obsolescence,
or deprecation serves to annotate the registry involved; the
information in the registry remains there for informational and
historic purposes.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
10. Appeals
Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made
using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026],
Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the
IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB.
11. Mailing Lists
All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing
assignment requests as described in this document are subject to
whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are
currently defined by best current practices or by IESG decision.
Registry experts may benefit from a registration-specific mailing
list where they can discuss requests. Lists can be set up where the
participants are just the designated experts, the experts plus
applicants, or the whole community. In general, the following should
be taken into account:
* Name a mailing list to be created by the IETF. (IANA does not
create or maintain mailing lists.) An existing IETF list can be
used, but consider whether the traffic would be problematic in
either direction (too much noise, too many requests).
* Consider whether the list should be limited to experts or open to
the public. Most expert review mailing lists are open.
* Set a deadline by which an expert should notify IANA that a
request has been approved, barring complications. Three weeks is
a common deadline.
* Keep in mind that IANA does not monitor expert review mailing
lists. Consider whether applicants should be instructed to submit
their requests to IANA instead of the mailing list. In such
cases, IANA would forward the request to the list with the
applicant in copy. Alerting IANA to the existence of the request
at the outset means that IANA can watch for signs of inactivity
and send reminders to non-responsive expert groups.
* When a document that creates a list tells applicants to write
directly to the list instead of IANA, IANA posts a note in the
registry that directs users to the list and tells them to contact
IANA if they don't receive a response by the deadline cited in the
document. However, not all applicants will consult the registry
before submitting an application.
Examples:
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
CBOR Web Token (CWT) expert review mailing list [RFC8392]
TLS expert review mailing list [RFC8447]
12. IESG Responsibilities and Capabilities
The following describes the registry-related actions the IESG must
perform:
* Represent the IETF as change controller: Section 2.3
* Review registration requests that require direct IESG approval:
Section 4.10
* Designate and manage experts: Section 5
* Review IANA Considerations sections, keeping in mind that IANA
cannot determine whether a given set of registration procedures is
appropriate for a new registry. For a discussion of common
procedures, see Section 4.
The following describes the actions the IESG can take when needed,
along with circumstances when such intervention might be appropriate:
* Modify existing registries: Section 2.4
* Override registration procedures: Section 3.3
* Advise and direct IANA as needed on topics such as unusual
requests, missing instructions, unreachable change controllers:
Section 3.3, Section 9.2, Section 9.3, and Section 9.4
13. Registry Design Practices
%% NOTE TO IANABIS: These are notes for a potential future section.
%%
IANA wants to make authors aware of registry design practices that
they might not have seen before. Examples might include publishing
templates as text files, as in the media types registry; setting a
specific registration procedure for requests to update only one
specific field; or creating a "Recommended," "Notes," or "Status"
field.
(Speaking of the "Status" field, is there an appetite for defining
common status values in the way that we define, e.g., "Unassigned"
and "Private Use"? Should "deprecated" and "obsoleted" be defined by
this document? Other examples currently in use include "current,"
"provisional," "historical," and "MANDATORY.")
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
If we were to take a prescriptive approach to registry design, what
would that encompass? Would a kind of menu be appropriate? Is this
a subsection, or would it belong elsewhere?]
14. Security Considerations
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to
instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It may also accept
clarifications from document authors, relevant working group chairs,
designated experts, and mail list participants.
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities
related to how an assigned number is used 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 misled as to the true security issues surrounding
the use of a registered number.
Security needs to be considered as part of the selection of a
registration policy. For some protocols, registration of certain
parameters will have security implications, and registration policies
for the relevant registries must ensure that requests get appropriate
review with those security implications in mind.
An analysis of security issues is generally required for all
protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes,
keywords, etc.) documented in IETF protocols or registered by IANA.
Such security considerations are usually included in the protocol
document [BCP72]. It is the responsibility of the IANA
considerations associated with a particular registry to specify
whether value-specific security considerations must be provided when
assigning new values and the process for reviewing such claims.
15. IANA Considerations
Sitewide, IANA will replace references to RFC 8126 with references to
this document.
IANA will create a "Change Controller" field for all new registries
that use the First Come First Served, Expert Review, and
Specification Required registries. In the future, IANA will also add
empty Change Controller fields to existing registries that use those
procedures but lack that field.
16. References
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
16.2. Informative References
[BCP72] Best Current Practice 72,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
Gont, F. and I. Arce, "Security Considerations for
Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network
Protocols", BCP 72, RFC 9416, DOI 10.17487/RFC9416, July
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9416>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, DOI 10.17487/RFC1591, March 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591>.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition
of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2939, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2939>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, February 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3575, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3575>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC3942] Volz, B., "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4) Options", RFC 3942,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3942, November 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3942>.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4005, August 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4005>.
[RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying
Material in DNS", RFC 4025, DOI 10.17487/RFC4025, March
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4025>.
[RFC4044] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC 4044,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4044, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4044>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
[RFC4169] Torvinen, V., Arkko, J., and M. Naslund, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using
Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) Version-2",
RFC 4169, DOI 10.17487/RFC4169, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4169>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
(MIPv6)", RFC 4283, DOI 10.17487/RFC4283, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4283>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, DOI 10.17487/RFC4520,
June 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4520>.
[RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types
Registry", RFC 4589, DOI 10.17487/RFC4589, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4589>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4727, November 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4727>.
[RFC5237] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
the Protocol Field", BCP 37, RFC 5237,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5237, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5237>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L. Jonsson, "The RObust
Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971,
October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>.
[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, DOI 10.17487/RFC6014,
November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.
[RFC6195] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", RFC 6195, DOI 10.17487/RFC6195, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6195>.
[RFC6230] Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan, "Media
Control Channel Framework", RFC 6230,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6230, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6230>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6929] DeKok, A. and A. Lior, "Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6929, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6929>.
[RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options",
RFC 6994, DOI 10.17487/RFC6994, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6994>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7499] Perez-Mendez, A., Ed., Marin-Lopez, R., Pereniguez-Garcia,
F., Lopez-Millan, G., Lopez, D., and A. DeKok, "Support of
Fragmentation of RADIUS Packets", RFC 7499,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7499, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7499>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC7564] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols",
RFC 7564, DOI 10.17487/RFC7564, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
[RFC8447] Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>.
[RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8615>.
[RFC8726] Farrel, A., "How Requests for IANA Action Will Be Handled
on the Independent Stream", RFC 8726,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8726, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8726>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9454] Fox, M., Lindem, A., and A. Retana, "Update to OSPF
Terminology", RFC 9454, DOI 10.17487/RFC9454, August 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9454>.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
[RFC9516] Mirsky, G., Meng, W., Ao, T., Khasnabish, B., Leung, K.,
and G. Mishra, "Active Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) for Service Function Chaining (SFC)",
RFC 9516, DOI 10.17487/RFC9516, November 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9516>.
[RFC9546] Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 9546,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9546, February 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9546>.
Appendix A. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26
A.1. 2025: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 8126
%% NOTE TO IANABIS: Much more will be detailed here as the document
progresses. %%
Significant additions:
* Added and defined preferred registry organization terms ("registry
group," "registry," and "subregistry").
* No registration procedure changes yet (clarifications aside).
Leaving this to IANABIS. Added list of questions we're aware of
to the top of the section.
* Added "bis" request (summarize instructions to IANA when
replicating an existing section).
Clarifications and such:
* Added mailing list creation advice.
* Noted that IANA will create change controller fields for some
registries.
A.2. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226
Significant additions:
* Removed RFC 2119 key words, boilerplate, and reference, preferring
plain English -- this is not a protocol specification.
* Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA
* Added Section 1.2, For Updated Information
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
* Added Section 2.1, Organization of Registries
* Added best practice for selecting an appropriate policy into
Section 4.
* Added Section 4.12, Using Multiple Policies in Combination
* Added Section 2.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry
* Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations
* Moved each well-known policy into a separate subsection of
Section 4.
* Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle
* Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries
* Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents
* Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner
* Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations
Clarifications and such:
* Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier
reading.
* Made clarifications about identification of IANA registries and
use of URLs for them.
* Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved".
* Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to
the designated expert.
* Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to
declare this policy.
* Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout.
A.3. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434
Changes include:
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
* Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better
group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new
registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the
text most applicable to their needs.
* Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.
* Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more
clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF
Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) and are
quick to make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in
the context of IANA Considerations.
* Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.
* Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in
RFCs".
* "Specification Required" now implies use of a designated expert to
evaluate specs for sufficient clarity.
* Added a section describing provisional registrations.
* Significantly changed the wording in the "Designated Experts"
section. Main purpose is to make clear that Expert Reviewers are
accountable to the community, and to provide some guidance for
review criteria in the default case.
* Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal
RFC 2026 appeals path is used.
* Added a section about reclaiming unused values.
* Added a section on after-the-fact registrations.
* Added a section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate
possible assignments (such as by a designated expert) are subject
to normal IETF rules.
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
B.1. Acknowledgments for This Document (2025)
Barry Leiba, Michelle Cotton, and Thomas Narten edited the previous
edition of this document (RFC 8126). Most of the text from that
document remains in this edition.
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
B.2. Acknowledgments for the Third Edition (2017)
Thomas Narten and Harald Tveit Alvestrand edited the two earlier
editions of this document (RFCs 2434 and 5226), and Thomas continues
his role in this third edition. Much of the text from RFC 5226
remains in this edition.
Thank you to Amanda Baber and Pearl Liang for their multiple reviews
and suggestions for making this document as thorough as possible.
This document has benefited from thorough review and comments by many
people, including Benoit Claise, Alissa Cooper, Adrian Farrel,
Stephen Farrell, Tony Hansen, John Klensin, Kathleen Moriarty, Mark
Nottingham, Pete Resnick, and Joe Touch.
Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for reorganizing some of the text
for better organization and readability, to Tony Hansen for acting as
document shepherd, and to Brian Haberman and Terry Manderson for
acting as sponsoring ADs.
B.3. Acknowledgments from the Second Edition (2008)
The original acknowledgments section in RFC 5226 was:
This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko,
Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Spencer
Dawkins, Barbara Denny, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley,
John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus
Westerlund, and Bert Wijnen.
B.4. Acknowledgments from the First Edition (1998)
The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was:
Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
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 RFC 4288.
Authors' Addresses
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs February 2025
Amanda Baber (editor)
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
PTI/ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive
Los Angeles, 90094
United States of America
Email: amanda.baber@iana.org
Sabrina Tanamal (editor)
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
PTI/ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive
Los Angeles, 90094
United States of America
Email: sabrina.tanamal@iana.org
Baber & Tanamal Expires 31 August 2025 [Page 55]