RFC 8722

Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators

📅 published February 2020, from ietf

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) RFC 8722 ✨

Okay bestie, let's get into it 🎀

Here's the title block, the important bits first 💅. This is RFC 8722, titled Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators 🦋. It was written by D. McPherson (Ed.) of Verisign, Inc., O. Kolkman (Ed.) of ISOC, J. Klensin (Ed.) of ISOC, and G. Huston (Ed.) of APNIC 👑. It was published by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in February 2020, and it's Informational, so it's not a standards-track spec 🌸. It has ISSN 2070-1721 🧚. It obsoletes RFC 6220 💜 and doesn't update anything else.

The whole point is that lots of IETF protocols pass around commonly defined values in messages and packets 📦. For everyone's implementations to read those values the same way, each value and its meaning needs to be uniquely defined 🔥. The IETF uses registries for that, and it's been current practice to hand each protocol parameter's registry to a nominated entity called the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator 🫶. This document describes that job and the requirements for it ✨. It also replaces every mention of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) with the IASA 2.0 Model, which is why it obsoletes RFC 6220 😭.

Status of This Memo ✨

Okay so, this one is not an Internet Standards Track spec, it's just published for information 🌈. It's a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and it's basically the IAB saying "this is valuable, keep it on record forever" 💅. It represents the IAB's consensus, and documents the IAB approves can't be candidates for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 7841 🙈.

If you want the current status, any errata, or a way to send feedback, check https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8722 🦋.

Copyright (c) 2020 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) as they were on the date of publication 💜. Read those carefully, bestie, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🎀.

Table of Contents ✨

1.  Overview
2.  Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter
        Registries
  2.1.  Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role
  2.2.  IAB Role
  2.3.  IESG Role
  2.4.  Role of the IETF Trust
  2.5.  Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
3.  Miscellaneous Considerations
4.  Security Considerations
5.  IANA Considerations
6.  Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses

1. Overview 🧚

Okay this is the main event 🔥. IETF protocols pass commonly defined values inside messages or packets 📦. So that independent implementations read them consistently, the values and their semantic intent have to be uniquely defined 💖. The IETF uses registries to record every possible value of a protocol parameter plus its semantic intent 💅. Those registries, their registration policy, and how their content is laid out get defined in the so-called "IANA Considerations" sections of IETF documents 🌸.

The split between the IETF and its Protocol Parameter Registry Operators is really common among standards development organizations (SDOs), though less common among tech consortia and similar bodies 🦋. Splitting these jobs up was a deliberate choice 💜. Reasons include handling admin issues, keeping a healthy distance between basic policy and specific allocations, and avoiding conflicts of interest from commercial or organizational relationships 🙈. For example, most ISO and ISO/IEC JTC1 standards that need registration specify a Registration Authority (RA) or Maintenance Agency (MA), and that body controls the actual registration decisions 👑. The database of what's registered for each standard then gets maintained by a secretariat or database function tied to the RA or MA, or, less often, by the secretariat of the body that made the standard 🎀.

This kind of role split shows up in other parts of the IETF framework too, like the RFC Editor function 🌈. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), acting for the IETF, is responsible for defining and managing the relationship with the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator role ✨. That includes picking and managing the Operator, managing the parameter registration process, and writing the guidelines for parameter allocation 🫶.

Just like other SDOs, the IETF can delegate authority for some specific decisions, but it still claims authority and responsibility over all of its protocol parameters and their registries 💅. It mostly stays out of picking particular values once a registration is approved 🦋. This document describes how these registries work for individual protocol parameters defined through the IETF Internet Standards Process (see RFC 6410 [BCP9]) 💖. The point is an orderly implementation by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), and others as needed, under the IAB's guidance 👑. It obsoletes RFC 6220 to swap every reference to the IASA and related structures for the ones in the IASA 2.0 Model [RFC8711] 💜.

Below, we describe the requirements for these delegated functions, which the IETF traditionally calls the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function 🌸.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter Registries 🌈

Okay so, outsourcing is basically the IETF's whole thing 💅. It outsources the management and implementation of some important functions (e.g., [RFC8728]) ✨. The protocol parameter registry function is one of those outsourced functions, so what comes next describes the roles and responsibilities for registering IETF protocol parameters 🫶.

Specifically, this document describes how a delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator works and what it does 🦋. It gets selected and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC8711] 👑. There's generally one Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, though additional Operators can be picked to run specific registries, and that's happened now and then 🎀. Having one Operator makes coordinating registries easier, even ones that don't look related at all 🧚. It also makes it simpler to keep formats and registry structure consistent, which helps users of the registries and supports quality control 💜.

Lots of protocols use identifiers made of constants and other well-known values 🌸. Even after a protocol is defined and deployed, new values sometimes need assigning (e.g., a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication algorithm for IPsec) 🔥. To keep those values consistent and interpreted the same way across implementations, a central authority has to administer their assignment 💖. For IETF protocols, that central authority is a delegated Protocol Parameter Registry Operator 🌈. Each protocol parameter has exactly one delegated Registry Operator 💅.

Part 1 done, bestie! 💜 More parts are coming, so stay tuned 🦋

2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role ✨

Okay so the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry is run under the umbrella of the Internet Architecture Board 🌸. Here's what the Registry Operator (Registry Operator, bestie) actually does:

  • Review and Advise 💅
    • Bestie, a Registry Operator might get asked to look over Internet-Drafts that the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is considering 🧐. The goal is to give the IESG advice on the contents of the "IANA Considerations" section, whether that section is clear about what to do for the Registry Operator when it's needed, and whether it matches the current published Registry Operator guidelines.
  • Registry 📚
    • To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments.
    • The delegated Registry Operator registers values for Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures in RFCs. That includes Standards Track documents [BCP9], Best Current Practice documents, and other RFCs that require protocol parameter assignment 🎀.

If values for Internet protocol parameters weren't specified, or something is ambiguous, the Registry Operator keeps assigning and registering only the protocol parameters that were already delegated to it. It follows past and current practice for those assignments, unless the IESG directs otherwise for operating practice 🌈. If there's ambiguity, the Registry Operator is expected to flag it to the IAB or IESG, as appropriate, and either suggest better text or ask the right people for clarification 🫶.

  • For each protocol parameter, the associated registry includes:
    • a reference to the RFC document that describes the parameter and the associated "IANA Considerations" about that parameter, and
    • for each registration of a protocol parameter value, the source of the registration and the date of the registration, if the date is known, and
    • any other information the RFC document describing the parameter says should be included in the registration data.
    • If the Registry Operator is in doubt, or there's a technical dispute, it seeks and follows technical guidance exclusively from the IESG 👑. Where appropriate, the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the Registry Operator.
  • The Registry Operator will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and procedures over time, and it will adopt them when the IESG instructs it to ✨.
  • Unless special circumstances apply to subsets of the data and specific rules are set by IETF consensus, each protocol parameter registry operates as a public registry 🦋. Its contents are openly available to the public, online, and free of charge 💖.
  • The Registry Operator assigns protocol parameter values according to the policy attached to each parameter, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review" [RFC8126] 💅.
  • Mailing Lists 📬
    • The Registry Operator maintains public mailing lists as specified in IANA Considerations [RFC8126]. These lists are for reviewing assignment proposals alongside a designated expert review function. On top of that, each Registry Operator should maintain a mailing list so the registry staff can be contacted by email 🍓.
  • Liaison Activity 🤝
    • The Registry Operator will nominate a liaison point of contact. Through this liaison, the Registry Operator may be asked to advise the IESG on IETF protocol parameters, and on the "IANA Considerations" section of each Internet-Draft being reviewed for publication as an RFC 🧚. Where appropriate, the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the Registry Operator.
  • Reporting 📊
    • The Registry Operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB about how the registry function is performing operationally. For an example of what those reports should look like, check out the supplement [MoU_SUPP2019] to the "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC2860]. It lays out the service level agreement (SLA) guidelines that ICANN, the current protocol parameter registry, has to operate under 😭.
    • When the chair of the IETF or IAB, or the IETF Executive Director [RFC8711], asks, the Registry Operator will give periodic reports at IETF Plenary meetings or wherever else it's directed, about the status of the registry function 🎤.
    • The Registry Operator will publish an annual report on the status of the function, plus a summary of performance indicators 🌸.
  • Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator 🔥

Unless special circumstances apply (see above):

  • All assigned values are to be published and made available free of any charges.
  • The assignment values may be redistributed without modification.

In any case,

  • any intellectual property rights in the IETF protocol parameter assignment information, including the IETF protocol parameter registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust [RFC8711] [RFC8714] 🌈.

2.2. IAB Role 🧠

An Operator of an IETF protocol parameter registry takes on this role as a delegated function under the authority of the IAB 👑.

The IAB is responsible for reviewing the current description of the registry function from time to time, and for directing the Registry Operator to adopt amendments to its role and mode of operation, in the best interests of the IETF and the Internet community in general 💜.

The IAB is also responsible for appointing an organization to carry out the delegated Registry Operator functions for each IETF protocol parameter. Specifically, the IAB defines the role and requirements for the functions it wants. The IETF LLC is responsible for finding a potential vendor and, once an agreement is in place, managing the various aspects of the relationship with that vendor 🎀. To be clear, the IAB is the deciding voice (for example, on appointment and termination), but it has to work in close consultation with the IETF LLC 🫶.

The IAB is responsible for setting the terms and conditions of this delegated role. Those terms and conditions should ensure the registry operates in a way that fully conforms to the functions described in this document. They also must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF with respect to the registry contents and maintenance 🔒.

2.3. IESG Role 🎯

The IESG is responsible for the technical direction on entries into IETF protocol parameter registries, and for maintaining the policies that technical direction is given under 💅. That direction is given by adopting directives in the "IANA Considerations" section of IETF Stream RFCs, or through stand-alone "IANA Considerations" RFCs ✨.

The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts offered for publication as IETF Stream RFCs [RFC8729] include "IANA Considerations" sections when needed, and that those sections conform to the current published guidelines 📝.

Technical assessment usually isn't the Registry Operator's job, so as part of giving technical direction, the IESG is responsible for identifying the technical experts needed to review registration requests where appropriate, or to resolve open technical questions about registering parameters 🧑‍🔬.

At its discretion, the IESG will organize the liaison activities with the Registry Operator's liaison point of contact, so communication stays clear and the registry function runs smoothly 🌸.

2.4. Role of the IETF Trust 🌈

The IETF Trust [RFC4371] was formed to act as the administrative custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights relating to the IETF Standards Process 🦋. That job used to belong to the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 🕰️.

Any intellectual property rights in IETF protocol parameter assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf of the IETF 👑.

The IETF Trust may make whatever regulations are appropriate for redistributing assignment values and registry publications 📜.

2.5. Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company 🏢

The IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC) [RFC8711] is responsible for finding a potential vendor in whatever manner it chooses, based on consultation with the IAB, and for managing the various aspects of the relationship with that vendor 💼.

On top of that, the IETF LLC has the responsibility to ensure long-term access, stability, and uniqueness across all of these registries 🔐. This matters a lot if a relationship with a Protocol Parameter Registry Operator ever gets terminated 😭.

3. Miscellaneous Considerations 🎀

While this document focuses on how the IETF creates protocols, the requirements are generically applicable to the extended IETF community as well, such as the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 🌍.

The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF protocol parameter registries, and for maintaining the policies that direction is given under 🧠. As part of the document approval process for the IETF Stream RFCs [RFC8729], the IESG is responsible for "IANA Considerations" verification 📋. For the other RFC streams, the approval bodies are responsible for verifying that documents include "IANA Considerations" sections when needed, and that those sections conform to the current published guidelines. If IANA considerations in non-IETF document streams lead to a dispute, the IAB makes the final decision ⚖️.

This document talks about "Registry Operator" (singular). There are stability and economy-of-scale advantages to having one single Registry Operator, but this document does not rule out different Registry Operators for different protocol registries when the circumstances justify it 🦋.

4. Security Considerations 🔐

This document does not propose any new protocols and does not introduce any new security considerations 💀✨. No new security considerations here, bestie, but that doesn't mean the stakes are low 🙈.

5. IANA Considerations 💜

This document requires no direct IANA actions in terms of creating or operating a protocol parameter registry 🌸. However, this document does define the roles and responsibilities of the various bodies that are responsible for, and associated with, operating the IETF's protocol parameter registration functions 👑🫶.

6. Informative References ✨

okay bestie, here's the reading list 📚💜 the references are where the RFC shows its receipts. I'm keeping every entry exactly as written so nothing gets lost in translation 🫶

[BCP9]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

           Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
           and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
           Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

           Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
           Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
           October 2011.

           Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
           Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
           December 2013.

           Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
           of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, January 2014.

           Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
           an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, March 2015.

           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>

[MoU_SUPP2019]
           IETF Administration LLC, "2019 ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental
           Agreement", 31 July 2019,
           <https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/FINAL_2019-IETF_MoU_
           Supplemental_Agreement_Signed_31July19.pdf>.

[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>.

[RFC4371]  Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
           IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371,
           January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4371>.

[RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
           IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

[RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
           Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
           RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

[RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
           the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
           BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

[RFC8714]  Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Update to the Process for
           Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust", BCP 101,
           RFC 8714, DOI 10.17487/RFC8714, February 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8714>.

[RFC8728]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
           "RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", RFC 8728,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8728, February 2020,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.

[RFC8729]  Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
           RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
           2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.

IAB Members at the Time of Approval 🎀

these are the IAB members who were around when this document got approved for publication, so here's the squad at that moment 👑 names are copied exactly, no edits 💅

Jari Arkko
Alissa Cooper
Stephen Farrell
Wes Hardaker
Ted Hardie
Christian Huitema
Zhenbin Li
Erik Nordmark
Mark Nottingham
Melinda Shore
Jeff Tantsura
Martin Thomson
Brian Trammell

Acknowledgements 🫶

okay so this one's the thank-you section 🥹 this doc started out as an adaptation of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226] 🌸 and then it got a glow-up so it explicitly covers Intellectual Property Rights and how the IAB and IESG fit into the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry function ✨

later on it got updated under the IASA2 working group so it matches the reorganised IETF Administrative Support Activity 🍓

and the IAB gave a huge shoutout to the reviewers who read the drafts and helped make it better 💖 the list is Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Adrian Farrel, Bob Hinden, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, Benjamin Kaduk, Alexey Melnikov, Thomas Narten, and Ray Pelletier 🦋 literal legends, all of them 🌈

Authors' Addresses 💌

and last but not least, here's who to contact. the editors are Danny McPherson, Olaf Kolkman, John C Klensin, and Geoff Huston 🧚 contact details are copied exactly so nobody gets lost 💜

Danny McPherson (editor)
Verisign, Inc.

Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com


Olaf Kolkman (editor)
Internet Society

Email: kolkman@isoc.org


John C Klensin (editor)

Email: john-ietf@jck.com


Geoff Huston (editor)
APNIC

Email: gih@apnic.net
📦 where this page comes from