[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5615

Network Working Group                                       C. Groves
Internet Draft                                          NTEC Australia
Intended status: BCP                                           Y. Lin
Expires: November 2009                                         Huawei
                                                          May 25, 2009



                   H.248/MEGACO Registration Procedures
                    draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-04.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
   rights and restrictions with respect to this document.






Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


Abstract

   This document updates the H.248/MEGACO IANA Package Registration
   procedures in order to better describe the Package registration
   process and to provide a more formal review and feedback process.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................. 2
   2. Conventions used in this document ............................ 4
   3. Formal Syntax ................................................ 4
   4. Security Considerations ...................................... 4
   5. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations .......................... 5
      5.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert ............. 5
      5.2. Package Registration Procedure .......................... 6
      5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure ....................... 8
      5.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure ............. 9
      5.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure ..................... 9
   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 10
      6.1. New IANA Package Registration .......................... 10
      6.2. IANA Error Code Registration ........................... 11
      6.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration ................. 11
      6.4. IANA Profile Name Registration ......................... 12
   7. References .................................................. 13
      7.1. Normative References ................................... 13
      7.2. Informative References ................................. 13
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 13
   Authors' Addresses ............................................. 13





1. Introduction

   Since the initial development of H.248/MEGACO a number of
   organizations have made use of the H.248/MEGACO protocol Package
   mechanism in order to allow a certain function to be controlled by
   H.248/MEGACO. The H.248/MEGACO package mechanism was in part
   introduced to allow organizations who had an in depth knowledge in a
   particular functional area to independently produce a package on this
   functionality. This acknowledged the fact that neither the IETF
   MEGACO Working Group nor the ITU-T Study Group 16 possessed in depth
   knowledge in all areas. Whilst this approach has been successful in
   the number and range of packages produced, in some cases these
   Packages were/are not fully aligned with H.248/MEGACO principles.



Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   Once a Package has been published and registered it is problematic to
   rectify any issues.

   The introduction of problems/inconsistencies was in part caused by
   the fact that the Packages were not fully reviewed by H.248/MEGACO
   experts. In fact the IANA H.248/MEGACO registration process did not
   actually specify that an in depth review should take place.

   The current H.248/MEGACO Package registration process was defined
   when ITU-T Study Group 16 and the IETF Megaco Working Groups were
   both active in Megaco/H.248 standardization and produced nearly all
   the registered Packages. Packages were reviewed in the IETF MEGACO
   Working Group and the Working Group chair was the IESG appointed
   expert in charge of the review of the requests for H.248 Package
   registration. This meant that H.248 Packages underwent an informal
   review before being registered. However this has changed.

   The current situation is that now the IETF Megaco working group is
   disbanded and new H.248/MEGACO development typically occurs through
   Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 (not withstanding email discussion
   on the IETF MEGACO mailing list). This move to ITU-T defined
   Recommendations is discussed in [RFC5125].

   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
   definition and IANA registration rules are updated to introduce a
   formal review step before the Package registration process is
   completed and ideally before the Package is published. This process
   would only be applicable to public Packages.

   As part of the Package development process Package developers are
   encouraged to send their Package for review to the ITU-T Study Group
   Question Rapporteur responsible for the H.248 sub-series (Question 3
   of Study Group 16 at the time of writing). When registering the
   Package with IANA, package developers are required to send a copy of
   the package for review by the IESG appointed expert. It is
   recommended to register the Package before final approval by the
   group in question in order to solicit feedback on the quality of
   their Package. Where ever possible this review will be done in
   conjunction with other H.248/MEGACO experts (e.g. in Q.3/16 and/or
   the MEGACO mailing list).

   The existing IANA Package registration process is a two step process.
   When Packages are first registered they receive the status of "In
   Progress (IP)". This allows Package developers to request a PackageID
   before the document is fully approved. When the document is approved
   then a change of status to "Final", may be requested. The new
   procedure introduces the step that the IESG appointed expert is


Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   consulted before a change of status is made. If the Package has been
   reviewed and is acceptable then the status may be changed to "Final".
   However if the package has not been provided for review or it has
   outstanding comments then the status SHALL remain at "IP".

   The goal of the updated text is to define a process that provides a
   timely technical review of packages to ensure that H.248/MEGACO
   packages are of good quality and minimize duplication.

   The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name"
   registration procedures have been included for completeness and to
   make explicit the role of the IESG reviewer. These procedures align
   with the considerations documented in [H.248amm1] and with [RFC3525]
   (with the exception of Profile Names which did not appear in this
   version).

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (BNF) as described in RFC-5234 [RFC5234].

   Text encoded PackageIDs shall conform to the "PackageName" encoding
   in H.248.1 [H248amm1] Annex B. Repeated below for convienience:

     PackageName   = NAME

     NAME       = ALPHA *63(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_")

   Note: A digit is not allowed as the first character of a package
   name.

4. Security Considerations

   Updating the IANA H.248/MEGACO package registration procedures has no
   additional security implications. Security for the H.248/MEGACO
   protocol over IP transports is discussed in H.248.1 section 10
   [H.248amm1].

   As of this date there have been no recorded security issues arising
   out of the registration or use of packages. Whilst packages may
   define extra procedures and code points these are done within the


Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   framework of the core H.248.1 specification. It is not possible to
   update the H.248.1 core protocol through a package specification. The
   use of the H.248.1 core protocol is agreed between a MGC and a MG.
   H.248 ServiceChange procedures establish a H.248 control association
   between the MGC and MG. To establish an association there must be a
   level of trust between the MGC and MG. In the context of this control
   (and trust) association the elements
   (properties/signals/events/statistics) from the Packages are conveyed
   between the MGC and MG. An MGC or MG will only act upon elements that
   it knows. If it does not understand a PackageID or package element
   then an error response is returned only in the context of the control
   association.

   If a malicious Package Specification is implemented in a MGC or MG it
   would be unlikely to cause problems. As H.248 is a master slave
   protocol, if the malicious package was implemented in the MGC and not
   the MG there would be no action because the MG would not understand
   the PackageID (and elements). If the malicious package was
   implemented on the MG there would be no effect because the MGC would
   never command the MG to use it. If the malicious package was
   implemented in both the MGC and MG then there's a wider non-H.248
   issue that someone has managed to install software on both the MGC
   and the MG. It is highly unlikely for such a person to ask IANA for a
   PackageID when they could use any one they want.

   Therefore it is in this respect that updates to the IANA H.248/MEGACO
   package registration procedures are deemed to have no additional
   security impacts.

   Requesters and the Expert reviewer should ensure that the package
   does not introduce any additional security issues. Requesters for
   public packages for a particular standards development organization
   must be authorized by that organization to request a Package
   registration.

5. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations

   For public registered Packages, Error Codes, ServiceChangeReasons and
   Profile Names review by an Expert reviewer is required before IANA
   performs a registration. Private Packages do not require the same
   level of review. The sections below outline the considerations for
   Expert review.

5.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert

   The IESG shall remain responsible for allocating the H.248/MEGACO
   expert. It is recommended that this person be involved in ongoing


Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   H.248/MEGACO development. As such it is recommended that
   identification of the IESG expert be done in consultation with the
   ITU-T Study Group/Question responsible for the H.248 sub-series of
   Recommendations, Q.3/16 at the time of writing.

5.2. Package Registration Procedure

   Package requesters are encouraged to review their work against
   H.248.1 section 12 [H.248amm1] "Package Definition" and are
   encouraged to use the "Package Definition Template" provided in
   H.248.1 Appendix II.

   The process for registering a public Package is deemed to be
   "specification required" as per [RFC5226]. As such once the initial
   checks occur Package requesters for public packages under development
   shall send the package text to IANA. They are also encouraged to send
   the package to the ITU-T Question/Study Group responsible for the
   H.248 sub-series of Recommendations (Q.3/16 at the time of writing)
   for review. Updated contact information can be found in the latest
   version of the H.248 Sub-series Implementors' Guide. This should
   occur as soon as practicable after the rough draft of the definition
   is completed and at least before the package is approved in order to
   ensure the package is consistent with H.248 methodologies and package
   design principles.

   In order to register private packages, a specification is not
   required but is encouraged.

   Package requesters are encouraged to request registration as early as
   practicable in the design process, to reserve a binary ID.  Binary
   IDs shall be published in the document defining the package.

   Once the initial or final request for a Package registration is
   received by IANA it will be forwarded to the IESG appointed Expert
   for review. During the review the input package and details will be
   compared to the Package template for completeness, as well as being
   compared against protocol syntax and procedures. It will be compared
   against existing work to see that it does not duplicate existing
   functionality. It will be reviewed to see that any potential security
   issues are addressed. The Expert reviewer will then work towards a
   resolution of any issues with the Package requester. The IESG
   appointed Expert may complete the review in consultation with other
   H.248 experts (i.e. Currently Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 and
   via email to IETF Megaco email list). If the package is deemed
   suitable, the IESG appointed Expert shall issue a statement
   indicating approval, copied to IANA.



Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   The IESG Expert Reviewer will ensure the following considerations are
   met to register a package with the IANA:

   1) A unique string name, unique serial number and version number is
   registered for each package. The string name is used as the PackageID
   for text encoding. The serial number is used as the PackageID for
   binary encoding. Public packages MUST be given serial numbers in the
   range 0x0001 to 0x7fff.  Private packages MUST be given serial
   numbers in the range 0x8000 to 0xffff. Serial number 0 is reserved.
   The unique string name and unique serial number MAY either be
   requested by the package requester or if not requested, assigned by
   the IANA.

   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an email
   and postal addresses for that contact. The contact information shall
   be updated by the defining organization as necessary.

   3) The public package requester shall provide a reference to a
   document that describes the package, which should be public:

     a) The document shall specify the version of the package that it
   describes.

     b) If the document is public, it should be located on a public web
   server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a
   mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be
   returned.

     c) If the document is not public, it must be made available for
   review by the IESG appointed Expert (without requiring an NDA) at the
   time of the application.

   Note: The document does not have to be publicly available at the time
   of the registration request, however the document shall be provided
   and available for review by the IESG appointed Expert. Once approved
   by a standards body the package SHOULD be made publicly available
   however the package MAY remain not public.

   For private packages a contact email address for the package
   registration shall be provided.

   4) Packages registered by other than recognized standards bodies
   shall have a minimum package name length of 8 characters.

   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served basis if
   all other conditions are met.



Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   Status - "In Progress" indicates that the package has not been fully
   reviewed and approved therefore may contain errors or may not be
   consistent with H.248 principles. "Final" indicates that the Package
   has been reviewed and approved and is stable. New packages shall be
   registered with a status of "IP". Once the Package has been finalized
   (i.e. approved according to the procedures of the Package Requester's
   Organisation)they should contact IANA in order to update the status
   to "Final".

   Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
   is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.

   The IANA will assign a serial number to each package meeting the
   conditions of registration (except for an update of an existing
   package, which retains the serial number of the package it is
   updating), in consecutive order of registration.



5.3. Error Code Registration Procedure

   Error Code requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
   the error code. Documentation addressing the considerations below
   shall be provided (i.e. Specification required as per [RFC5226]). The
   IANA shall then forward the request to the IESG appointed Expert for
   review.

   The following considerations shall be met to register an error code
   with IANA:

   1) An error number and a one-line (80-character maximum) string are
   registered for each error.

   2) A complete description of the conditions under which the error is
   detected shall be included in a publicly available document. The
   description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the error
   from all other existing error codes.

   3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
   have a stable URL.

   4) Error numbers registered by recognized standards bodies shall have
   3- or 4-character error numbers.

   5) Error numbers registered by all other organizations or individuals
   shall have 4-character error numbers.



Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   6) Only the organization or individual that originally defined it (or
   their successors or assigns) can modify an error number definition.
   If the modification leads to a change in the error code number, error
   code name or error string the Error Code modifier shall send a
   request to IANA to register the update. This request shall be treated
   as a new error code request which will involve an Expert review.

   Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
   is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.

5.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure

   ServiceChange Reason requesters shall send a request to the IANA to
   register the ServiceChange Reason. Documentation addressing the
   considerations below shall be provided (i.e. Specification required
   as per [RFC5226]). The IANA shall then forward the request to the
   IESG appointed Expert for review.

   The following considerations shall be met to register ServiceChange
   reason with IANA:

   1) A one-phrase, 80-character maximum, unique reason code is
   registered for each reason.

   2) A complete description of the conditions under which the reason is
   used shall be included in a publicly available document. The
   description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the reason
   from all other existing reasons.

   3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
   have a stable URL.

   Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
   is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.

5.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure

   Profile Name requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
   the Profile Name. Documentation addressing the considerations below
   shall be provided. The IANA shall then forward the request to the
   IESG appointed Expert for review.

   The following considerations shall be met to register a profile with
   IANA:





Groves                Expires November 25, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   1) A unique string name and version number (version may be omitted
   when the profile name contains a wildcard) is registered for each
   profile.

   2) A contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall
   be specified. The contact information shall be updated by the
   defining organization as necessary.

   3) Profiles registered by other than recognized standards bodies
   shall have a minimum profile name length of 6 characters.

   4) Profile names containing a wildcard "*" on the end of their names
   shall be accepted if the first 6 characters are fully specified. It
   is assumed that the organization that was issued with the profile
   name will manage the namespace associated with the wildcard. IANA
   shall not issue other profiles names within "name*" range.

   All other profile names are first come-first served if all other
   conditions are met.

   Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
   is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.

6. IANA Considerations

   This document describes an updated package registration procedure.
   [RFC5226] has been considered in making the updates. This document
   does not alter the tabular package, error code and service change
   reason information in the Megaco/H.248 Packages registry.

   The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name" IANA
   considerations have been included for completeness. These
   considerations align with the considerations documented in H.248.1
   [H248amm1] and with [RFC3525] (with the exception of Profile Names
   which did not appear in this version).

6.1. New IANA Package Registration

   On the request for an initial or final Package registration the IANA
   shall forward the received information (i.e. the Package Text
   (Specification required as per [RFC5226]) to the IESG appointed
   expert for review (See section 4.2).

   After the review when instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the
   IANA shall register the following information in the "Megaco/H.248
   Packages" registry as described below:



Groves                Expires November 25, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   1. Serial Number (Identity used for Binary Encoding, also known as
      Binary ID)

   2. Text Name (Identity used for Text Encoding, see section 3 for the
      syntax)

   3. Package version

   4. Extension information - Binary ID and package version

   5. Status* - IP ("In Progress") or Final

   6. Package name, Reference and Contact information

   IANA will maintain the currency and public availability of the
   tabulation of public and private packages.  Packages will be listed
   in increasing order of serial number.  The latest Package version is
   entered, replacing the previous version in the registry.

6.2. IANA Error Code Registration

   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   the received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
   required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).

   When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
   the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
   described below:

   1. Error Code Number

   2. Error Code Text String

   3. Reference

6.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration

   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text and
   required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
   section 4.4).

   When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
   the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
   described below:

   1. ServiceChange Reason Number


Groves                Expires November 25, 2009              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   2. ServiceChange Reason Text String

   3. Reference

6.4. IANA Profile Name Registration

   On the request for a Profile Name registration, the IANA shall
   forward to received request to the IESG appointed expert for review
   (See section 4.5).

   When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
   the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
   described below:

   1. Profile Name

   2. Version

   3. Reference/Contact





























Groves                Expires November 25, 2009              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009




7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P., "Augmented BNF for Syntax
             Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [H248amm1]  International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
             protocol: Version 3", Amendment 1 to ITU-T Recommendation
             H.248.1, April 2008.

7.2. Informative References

   [RFC3525] Groves C., Pantaleo M., Anderson T. and Taylor T., "Gateway
             Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.

   [RFC5125] Taylor, T., "Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic", RFC
             5125, February 2008.

   [RFC5226] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP26, RFC 5226, May
             2008.

8. Acknowledgments

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.



Authors' Addresses

   Christian Groves
   NTEC Australia
   Newport, Victoria
   Australia

   Email: Christian.Groves@nteczone.com







Groves                Expires November 25, 2009              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Package Registration Procedures            May 2009


   Yangbo Lin
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   Shenzhen, Guangdong
   P. R. China

   Email: linyangbo@huawei.com










































Groves                Expires November 25, 2009              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/