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

Versions: (RFC 2434) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5226

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             Thomas Narten
                                                                     IBM
<draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis>    Harald Tveit Alvestrand
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           July 19, 2004

       Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs

           <draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt>


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft expires January, 2005.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and
   other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and
   deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a
   new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication trans-
   form for IPsec).  To ensure that such quantities have consistent



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   values and interpretations in different implementations, their
   assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF pro-
   tocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA).

   In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it
   needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can
   be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management
   of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instruc-
   tions describing that role.  This document discusses issues that
   should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to
   a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the spe-
   cific text that must be included in documents that place demands on
   the IANA.





































draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   Contents

   Status of this Memo..........................................    1

   1.  Introduction.............................................    3

   2.  Issues To Consider.......................................    4

   3.  Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions.......................    6

   4.  Registration maintenance.................................    8

   5.  What To Put In Documents.................................    8
      5.1.  When There Are No IANA Actions......................    9
      5.2.  Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space..    9
      5.3.  Creation of New Registries..........................   10

   6.  Applicability to Past and Future RFCs....................   11

   7.  Security Considerations..................................   12

   8.  Acknowledgments..........................................   12

   9.  References...............................................   13

   10.  Authors' Addresses......................................   14


1.  Introduction

   Many protocols make use of fields that contain constants and other
   well-known values (e.g., the Protocol field in the IP header [IP] or
   MIME types in mail messages [MIME-REG]). Even after a protocol has
   been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be
   assigned (e.g., a new option type in DHCP [DHCP] or a new encryption
   or authentication algorithm for IPsec [IPSEC]).  To ensure that such
   fields have consistent values and interpretations in different imple-
   mentations, their assignment must be administered by a central
   authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [IANA-MOU].

   In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field
   a "name space"; its actual content may be a name, a number or another
   kind of value. The assignment of a specific value to a name space is
   called an assigned number (or assigned value). Each assignment of a
   number in a name space is called a registration.

   In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values
   should be assigned. This document provides guidelines to authors on
   what sort of text should be added to their documents, and reviews
   issues that should be considered in formulating an appropriate policy
   for assigning numbers to name spaces.

   Not all name spaces require centralized administration.  In some
   cases, it is possible to delegate a name space in such a way that
   further assignments can be made independently and with no further
   (central) coordination. In the Domain Name System, for example, the
   IANA only deals with assignments at the higher-levels, while subdo-
   mains are administered by the organization to which the space has
   been delegated. As another example, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as
   defined by the ITU are also delegated [ASSIGNED].  When a name space
   can be delegated, the IANA only deals with assignments at the top
   level.

   This document uses the terms 'MUST', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY', and their
   negatives, in the way described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. In this case,
   "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
   protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.


2.  Issues To Consider

   One issue to consider in managing a name space is its size. If the
   space is small and limited in size, assignments must be made care-
   fully to ensure that the space doesn't become exhausted. If the space
   is essentially unlimited, on the other hand, it may be perfectly rea-
   sonable to hand out new values to anyone that wants one.  Even when
   the space is essentially unlimited, however, it is usually desirable
   to have at least minimal review to prevent the hoarding of or unnec-
   essary wasting of a space.  For example, if the space consists of
   text strings, it may be desirable to prevent organizations from
   obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to the "best" names
   (e.g., existing company names). Experience has also shown that some
   level of minimal review is useful to prevent assignments in cases
   where the request is malformed or not actually needed (this may not
   always be immediately obvious to a non-subject-matter expert).

   A second consideration is whether it makes sense to delegate the name
   space in some manner. This route should be pursued when appropriate,
   as it lessens the burden on the IANA for dealing with assignments.

   A third, and perhaps most important consideration, concerns potential
   impact on interoperability of unreviewed extensions. Proposed proto-
   col extensions generally benefit from community review; indeed,
   review is often essential to prevent future interoperability



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   problems. [VENDOR-EXT] discusses this topic in considerable detail.

   In some cases, the name space is essentially unlimited, there are no
   potential interoperability issues, and assigned numbers can safely be
   given out to anyone. When no subjective review is needed, the IANA
   can make assignments directly, provided that the IANA is given spe-
   cific instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and
   what information must be provided before a request for an assigned
   number will be considered. Note that the IANA will not define an
   assignment policy; it should be given a set of guidelines that allow
   it to make allocation decisions with minimal subjectivity.

   In most cases, some review of prospective allocations is appropriate,
   and the question becomes who should perform the review and how rigor-
   ous the review needs to be.  In many cases, one might think that an
   IETF Working Group (WG) familiar with the name space at hand should
   be consulted. In practice, however, WGs eventually disband, so they
   cannot be considered a permanent evaluator. It is also possible for
   name spaces to be created through individual submission documents,
   for which no WG is ever formed.

   One way to ensure community review of prospective assignments is to
   have the requester submit a document for publication as an RFC. Such
   an action helps ensure that the IESG and relevant WGs review the
   assignment. [XXX update wrt draft-iesg-rfced-documents?] This is the
   preferred way of ensuring review, and is particularly important if
   any potential interoperability issues can arise. For example, many
   assignments are not just assignments, but also involve an element of
   protocol specification. A new option may define fields that need to
   be parsed and acted on, which (if specified poorly) may not fit
   cleanly with the architecture of other options or the base protocols
   on which they are built.

   In some cases, however, the burden of publishing an RFC in order to
   get an assignment is excessive. However, it is generally still useful
   (and sometimes necessary) to discuss proposed additions on a mailing
   list dedicated to the purpose (e.g., the ietf-types@iana.org for
   media types) or on a more general mailing list (e.g., that of a cur-
   rent or former IETF WG).  Such a mailing list provides a way for new
   registrations to be publicly reviewed prior to getting assigned, or
   to give advice for persons who want help in understanding what a
   proper registration should contain.

   While discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical
   expertise, opinions may vary and discussions may continue for some
   time without clear resolution.  In addition, the IANA cannot partici-
   pate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when
   such discussions reach consensus.  Therefore, the IANA cannot allow



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   general mailing lists to fill the role of providing definitive recom-
   mendations regarding a registration question.  Instead, the IANA will
   rely on a "designated expert" to advise it in assignment matters.
   That is, the IANA forwards the requests it receives to a specific
   point-of-contact (one or a small number of individuals) and acts upon
   the returned recommendation from the designated expert. The desig-
   nated expert can initiate and coordinate as wide a review of an
   assignment request as may be necessary to evaluate it properly.

   Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
   IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
   new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
   appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
   will appoint replacements if necessary.

   Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
   normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PRO-
   CESS]. Since the designated experts are appointed by the IESG, they
   may be removed by the IESG.


3.  Well-Known IANA Policy Definitions

   The following are some defined policies, some of which are in use
   today. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to
   date. It is not required that documents use these terms; the actual
   requirement is that the instructions to IANA are clear and unam-
   bigous. However, it is preferable to use these terms where possible,
   since there meaning is widely understood.

      Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
             purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
             prevent multiple sites from using the same value in differ-
             ent (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA to
             review such assignments and assignments are not generally
             useful for interoperability.

             Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have signif-
             icance only within a single site.  "X-foo:" header lines in
             email messages.

      Experimental Use - Similar to private or local use only, with the
             purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See [EXPERI-
             MENTATION] for details.

      Hierarchical allocation - Delegated managers can assign values
             provided they have been given control over that part of the
             name space.  IANA controls the higher levels of the



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


             namespace according to one of the other policies.

             Examples: DNS names, Object Identifiers

      First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so
             long as they provide a point of contact and a brief
             description of what the value would be used for.  For num-
             bers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA;
             with names, specific names are usually requested.

             Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP
             and UDP port numbers.


      Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
             Expert is required.

      Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be docu-
             mented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
             reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
             between independent implementations is possible.

             Examples: SCSP [SCSP]

      IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG.
             Although there is no requirement that the request be docu-
             mented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request docu-
             ments or other supporting materials on a case-by-case
             basis.

      IETF Review - (Formerly "IETF Consensus" [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS])
             New values are assigned only through RFC publication of
             documents that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
             Sponsored documents [XXX need ref]. The intention is that
             the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by
             the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable
             working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed
             assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or
             otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate manner.

             [XXX: should an explicit last call be required?]

             Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent
             Address Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].

      Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
             RFCs approved by the IESG.




draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


             Examples: MIME top level types [MIME-REG]


   It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name
   space into several categories, with assignments out of each category
   handled differently. For example, the DHCP option space [DHCP] is
   split into two parts. Option numbers in the range of 1-127 are glob-
   ally unique and assigned according to the Specification Required pol-
   icy described above, while options number 128-254 are "site spe-
   cific", i.e., Private Use. Dividing the name space up makes it possi-
   ble to have different policies in place for different ranges.


4.  Registration maintenance

   Registrations are a request for an assigned number, including the
   related information needed to evaluate and document the request. Even
   after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain
   additional information that may need to be updated over time. For
   example, mime types, character sets, language tags, etc. typically
   include more information than just the registered value itself. Exam-
   ple information can include point of contact information, security
   issues, pointers to updates, literature references, etc.  In such
   cases, the document must clearly state who is responsible for main-
   taining and updating a registration. It is appropriate to:

      - Let the author update the registration, subject to the same con-
        straints and review as with new registrations.

      - Allow some mechanism to attach comments to the registration, for
        cases where others have significant objections to claims in a
        registration, but the author does not agree to change the regis-
        tration.

      - Designate the IESG or another authority as having the right to
        reassign ownership of a registration. This is mainly to get
        around the problem when some registration owner cannot be
        reached in order to make necessary updates.


5.  What To Put In Documents

   The previous sections presented some issues that should be considered
   in formulating a policy for assigning well-known numbers and other
   protocol constants. It is the Working Group and/or document author's
   job to formulate an appropriate policy and specify it in the appro-
   priate document. In almost all cases, having an explicit "IANA Con-
   siderations" section is appropriate. The following subsections define



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   what is needed for the different types of IANA actions.


5.1.  When There Are No IANA Actions

   Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
   know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
   that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
   IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
   to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
   the author has consciously made such a determination!), such docu-
   ments should include an IANA Considerations section that states:

      This document has no IANA Actions.


5.2.  Requesting Assignments From an Existing Name Space

   Often, a document requests the assignment of a code point from an
   already existing name space (i.e., one created by a previously-pub-
   lished RFC). In such cases documents should make clear:

   - From what name space is a value is being requested? List the exact
      name space listed on the IANA web page (and RFC), and cite the RFC
      where the name space is defined. (Note: There is no need to men-
      tion what the allocation policy for new assignments is, as that
      should be clear from the references.)

   -  For each value being requested, give it a unique name, e.g., TBD1,
      TBD2, etc. Throughout the document where the actual IANA-assigned
      value should be filled in, use "TDBx" notation. This helps ensure
      that the final RFC has the correct assigned value filled in in all
      of the relevant places where the value is listed in the final doc-
      ument.

   - Normally, the values to be used are chosen by IANA; documents
      shouldn't pick values themselves. However, in some cases a value
      may have been used for testing or in early implementations. In
      such cases, it is acceptable to include text suggesting what spe-
      cific value should be used (e.g., include the text "the value XXX
      is suggested"). However, it should be noted that suggested values
      are just that; IANA will attempt to assign them, but may find that
      impossible, if the proposed number has already been assigned for
      some other use.

   -  The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA
      actions, with pointers to the relevant sections as appropriate.
      When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt              [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


      include a summary table.


   As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment
   of a DHCPv6 option number:

      IANA has assigned an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recur-
      sive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the
      Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined
      in section 24.3 of RFC 3315.


5.3.  Creation of New Registries

   Documents that create a new name space (or modify the definition of
   an existing space) and that expect the IANA to play a role in main-
   taining that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered val-
   ues) MUST document the process through which future assignments are
   made.  Such a section must state clearly:

      - The name of the new registry to be created. The name will appear
        on the IANA web page and will be refered to in future Internet
        Drafts that need to allocate a value from the new space.

      - The review steps under which future allocations from the name
        space will be made (i.e., see Section 3). Note: When a Desig-
        nated Expert is used, documents MUST NOT name the Designated
        Expert in the document itself; instead, the name should be
        relayed to the appropriate IESG Area Director at the time the
        document is sent to the IESG for approval.

      - If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public
        mailing list (such as the ietf-types@iana.org for media types),
        that mailing address should be specified. Note, however, that
        use of a Designated Expert MUST also be specified.

      - if the IANA is expected to make assignments without requiring an
        outside review, sufficient guidance MUST be provided so that the
        requests can be evaluated with minimal subjectivity.

   Finally, it is quite acceptable to pick one of the example policies
   cited above and refer to it by name.  Indeed, this is the preferred
   mechanism in those cases where the sample policies provide the
   desired level of review. It is also acceptable to cite one of the
   above policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of
   considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
   For example, RADIUS [RFC3575] specifies the use of a Designated
   Expert, but includes additional criteria the Designated Expert should



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   follow.

   For example, a document could say something like:

        This document defines the FooBar DHCP option (see Section y),
        assigned a value of TBD1 from the DCHP Option space [RFCXXX].
        The FooBar option also contains an 8-bit FooType field, for
        which IANA is to create and maintain a registry. Initial values
        for FooType field are given below; future assignments are to be
        made through Expert Review [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. Assignments
        consist of a name and the value.

            Name        Value        Definition
            ----        -----        ----------
            Frobnitz    1           See Section y.1
            NitzFrob    2           See Section y.2

   For examples of documents that provide good and detailed guidance to
   the IANA on the issue of assigning numbers, consult [MIME-REG, MIME-
   LANG, RFC3757, RFC3749, RFC3575].


6.  Applicability to Past and Future RFCs

   For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on
   the IANA to evaluate assignments without specifying a precise evalua-
   tion policy, the IANA (in consultation with the IESG) will continue
   to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies
   can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process.

   Any decisions made by the IANA can be appealed using the normal IETF
   appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-PROCESS]. Specif-
   ically, appeals should be directed to the IESG, followed (if neces-
   sary) by an appeal to the IAB. By virtue of the IAB's role as over-
   seer of IANA administration [RFC 1602], the IAB's decision is final.

   All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on the IANA
   to register or otherwise manage assignments MUST provide guidelines
   for managing the name space.

   [XXX: following is new text w.r.t. 2434. Is this something that is
   appropriate to include??]

   Since RFC 2434 was published, experience has shown that the docu-
   mented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always
   adequately cover the reality on the ground. For example, many older
   routing protocols do not have documented, detailed IANA considera-
   tions. In addition, documented IANA considerations are sometimes



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   found to be too stringent to allow even working group documents (for
   which there is strong consensus) to obtain code points from IANA in
   advance of actual RFC publication.  In other cases, the documented
   procedures are unclear or neglected to cover all the cases. In order
   to allow assignments in individual cases where there is strong IETF
   consensus that an allocation should go forward, but the documented
   procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG is granted
   authority to approve assignments in such cases. The intention is not
   to overule documented procedures, or to obviate the need for proto-
   cols to properly document their IANA Considerations, but to permit
   assignments in individual cases where it is obvious that the assign-
   ment should just be made, but updating the IANA process just to
   assign a particular code point is viewed as too heavy a burden.


7.  Security Considerations

   Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
   authenticated.

   Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a proto-
   col may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities related
   to how an assigned number is used (e.g., if it identifies a protocol)
   may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, informa-
   tion about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing
   registrations, so that users are not mislead as to the true security
   issues surrounding the use of a registered number.

   An analysis of security issues is required for all parameters (data
   types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) used in IETF protocols or
   registered by the IANA. All descriptions of security issues must be
   as accurate as possible regardless of level of registration.  In par-
   ticular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated
   with this type" must not given when it would be more accurate to
   state that "the security issues associated with this type have not
   been assessed".


8.  Acknowledgments

   From RFC 2434:

   Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what
   the IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and
   patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document.
   Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the
   document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was
   borrowed from [MIME-REG].



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


9.  References

   [ASSIGNED] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
                    RFC 1700, October 1994.  See also:
                    http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

   [BGP4-EXT] Bates. T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y.  Rekhter, "Multi-
                    protocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283, February
                    1998.

   [DHCP-OPTIONS] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP
                    Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

   [EXPERIMENTATION] "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Consid-
                    ered Useful". T.  Narten, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
                    Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
                    26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [IANA-MOU] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work
                    of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. B. Car-
                    penter, F. Baker, M.  Roberts, RFC 2860, June 2000.

   [IETF-PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revi-
                    sion 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

   [IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Proto-
                    col", RFC 1825, August 1995.


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


   [MIME-LANG] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
                    Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Con-
                    tinuations", RFC 2184, August 1997.

   [MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Inter-
                    net Mail Extension (MIME) Part Four: Registration
                    Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.

   [SCSP] Luciani, J., Armitage, G. and J. Halpern, "Server Cache Syn-
                    chronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April 1998.




draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   [SMTP-EXT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E.  and D.
                    Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, Novem-
                    ber 1995.

   [VENDOR-EXT] "Considerations on the Extensibility of IETF protocols",
                    draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt

   [RFC3575] IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial
                    In User Service). B. Aboba. RFC 3575, July 2003.



10.  Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Narten
   IBM Corporation
   3039 Cornwallis Ave.
   PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195

   Phone: 919-254-7798
   EMail: narten@us.ibm.com

   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
   Cisco Systems
   5245 Arboretum Dr
   Los Altos, CA
   USA

   Email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
   ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
   made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.



draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                             July 19, 2004


   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
   MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
   OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.




























draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00.txt             [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/