[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02
Internet Architecture Board(IAB) IAB
Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed.
Intended status: Informational NLnet Labs
Expires: July 24, 2014 January 22, 2014
A Framework for the Evolution of the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority(IANA)
draft-iab-iana-framework-01
Abstract
This document provides a framework for describing the management of
Internet registries managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority. It defines terminology describing the various roles and
responsibilities associated with management of Internet registry
functions.
[ InternetGovtech@iab.org is the list which the IAB will be
monitoring for the discussion of this draft. See http://www.iab.org/
mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech for subscription details ]
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 http://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 July 24, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Internet Registries and Interoperability on the Internet . 2
1.2. The IANA function and Internet Registries . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. An IANA Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Roles in Relation to Internet Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. The Policy Development Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Evaluation Coordination Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Maintenance and Publication of Registry Content Role . 7
2.3. The Oversight Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Key principles of the IANA framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. On Separation of the roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. On Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. On Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. On the Abbility to create Internet Registries . . . . . . 10
4.5. On the relation to RFC6220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Policy Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.1. Policy Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2. Policy Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. Policy Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Evaluation Coordination Role Examples . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. Evaluation Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. Evaluation Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.3. Evaluation Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Maintenance and Publication of Registry Content . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Maintenance Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.2. Maintenance Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Oversight Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.1. Oversight Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.2. Oversight Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.3. Oversight Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.4. Oversight Example 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Contributors and Acknowledgemetns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A.1. Version Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A.1.1. draft-kolkman-iana-framework-00 . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A.1.2. draft-kolkman-iana-framework-00 -> draft-iab-
iana-framework-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A.1.3. draft-iab-iana-framework-00 -> draft-iab-iana-
framework-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A.1.4. TODO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A.2. Subversion information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
1.1. Internet Registries and Interoperability on the Internet
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Internet registries hold identifiers consisting of constants and
other well-known values used by Internet protocols. Such values
define a common vocabulary that protocols understand when
communicating with each other. For example, the TCP port number of
"80" is globally understood to denote "http" service. Almost every
protocol in existence makes use of registries in some form.
Internet registries are critical to the operation of the Internet.
They are needed to record the definitive value and meaning of
identifiers that protocols use when communicating with each other.
Management of Internet registries must be done in a predictable,
stable and secure manner in order to ensure that protocol identifiers
have consistent meanings and interpretations across all
implementations and deployments.
Protocol identifier values can be numbers, strings, addresses, and so
on. They are uniquely assigned for one particular purpose or use.
They can be maintained in centrally maintained lists (such as, for
instance, lists of cryptographic algorithms in use in a particular
protocol) or hierarchically allocated and assigned by separate
entities at different points in the hierarchy (such as for IP
addresses and domain names). At the time of writing, the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains over one thousand
protocol parameter registries.
Stable and predictable assignment and registration of protocol
identifiers for Internet protocols is of great importance to many
stakeholders, including developers, vendors, and customers, as well
as users of devices, software, and services on the Internet. These
stakeholders use and depend on registries and implicitly trust the
registry system to be stable and predictable. The registry system is
built on trust and mutual cooperation; the use of the registries is
voluntary and is not enforced by mandates or certification policies.
Stability and consistency of Internet registries is achieved through
the definition of appropriate and clear policies for making additions
to or updating existing entries. Such policies must take into
account the technical and operational properties of the technology
that makes use of the registries. At the same time, it must be
possible to evolve the systems and policies for managing registry
contents as the Internet itself evolves.
1.2. The IANA function and Internet Registries
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its predecessors have
traditionally separated the publication mechanism of its protocol
specifications, published in immutable RFCs, from the registries
containing protocol parameters. The latter is maintained by a set of
functions traditionally known collectively as the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA). Dating back to the somewhat before the
earliest days of the Internet, the specification publication function
and the registry maintenance functions were tightly coupled: Jon
Postel of the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University
of Southern California (USC) was responsible for both the RFC
publications and the IANA function. However, this tight coupling was
never a requirement and indeed, today the RFC Editor and IANA
function are contracted to different entities. (The RFC publication
process and the IANA protocol parameter policy development process
and oversight remain closely coupled. For instance,one of the
responsibilities of the IAB is oversight over the RFC Series and IANA
[RFC2850] )
One way to approach Internet Registry Management is to examine the
what, why, who and how. The Internet or IANA Registries are tables
with assignments and allocations of values (the What), established by
explicit directions contained within Request for Comment (RFC)
documents (the Why). The framework herein applies to individual
registries. However Internet registries are colloquially grouped
into 3 classes: Names, Numbers, and IETF Protocol Parameters. The
framework applies, with some nuance, to all registries, regardless of
their class.
In this framework we identify major 4 roles: The Policy, The
Oversight, the Evaluation Coordination, and Maintenance and
Publication Roles (the latter two are both both implementation
aspects). The entities in those roles can be interpreted as 'the who'
while their collective responsibilities determine 'the how'.
Normally we use the term IANA for the set of functions with specific
responsibilities within the context of Internet Registries (mainly
those under Implementation Aspects below). In this document we use
the term IANA or IANA function(s) independent of the entities that
implement those functions (the Who). Currently, according to the
Memorandum of Understanding[RFC2860], the maintenance, implementation
and publication of most of the IETF protocol Registries is performed
by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
1.3. An IANA Framework
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
This document provides a framework for describing the management of
Internet Registries as they are currently implemented. It defines
terminology describing the various roles and responsibilities
associated with those roles in Section 2. In Section 3 we enumerate a
few key principles for the implementation of the Framework. In
Section 4 we discuss some of the issues that came up during the
development of the draft. Finally, in Section 5 we provide a number
of examples on how the framework applies today. Those sections
intend to demonstrate that the framework can be applied to the
situation today, albeit with the necessary nuance, and that it is a
helpful concept going forward.
Although this document can be read independent of [RFC6220] and
[RFC7020] -- which document the requirements specific to a subset of
all current IANA function Internet registries, namely the IETF
protocol parameter registries and the Internet Numbers Registry
System respectively --, those RFCs provide context and example of the
subject matter of this document.
The words must, should, shall, required, may and such should not be
interpreted as normative language as defined in [RFC2119], but in
their plain English meaning.
2. Roles in Relation to Internet Registries
In this section we discuss the roles relevant to Internet Registries
in terms of an abstract registry that is defined as part of a
arbitrary technical specification. Registry management involves 3
roles. First, a policy development role that defines the purpose of
the registry and the process and requirements for making additions or
updates. Second, roles that refer to the operational process for
processing change requests to a registry and for publishing its
contents, both implementation aspects. Finally, an oversight role
that refers to a high-level responsibility for ensuring that the
other two roles are operating satisfactorily and stepping in if
significant changes are needed in the policies or implementation of a
registry. Each of these roles is described in more detail in the
following subsections.
2.1. The Policy Development Role
Description:
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Registries may need to have additional values added, or an existing
entry may need to be removed, clarified, or updated in some manner.
The policy development role creates the registry and defines the
policies that describes who can make updates or additions, what sort
of review (if any) is needed, the conditions under which update
requests would normally be granted or when they might not, the
security requirements of these interactions, etc. The entity
performing this role may delegate its policy responsibilities for
part or all of the parameters within the registry. Concequently, in
this document the word "policy" is used to refer to a specific course
or principle of action for administration of a technical resource
maintained within specific registries"
Key Responsibilities:
The policy development role refers to the creation of the governing
policies that define how and when a registry can be updated or
modified.
Primary Output:
A set of policies by which registries can be populated.
2.2. Implementation aspects
The implementation aspects refer to the actual day-to-day operation
of a registry in terms of servicing requests for registry additions
or updates and publishing the contents of the registry. These roles
implement processes that abide by the policies as defined by the
policy development role. Two distinct roles responsible for
implementation aspects can be identified: Evaluation Coordination,
and the Maintenance and Publication of Registry Content. We discuss
these Roles separately.
2.2.1. Evaluation Coordination Role
Evaluation Role for short.
Key Responsibility:
Coordinate, operate, and process the timely evaluation of
registration requests based on policies set by the Policy Role.
Primary Output:
A smoothly functioning system in which requests for registry updates
are submitted and are evaluated and processed in a manner consistent
with the policy guidance with the results recorded and published as
appropriate. In some cases, the evaluation of requests is a
straightforward task requiring little subjective evaluation, whereas
in other cases evaluation is more complex and requires subject matter
experts as defined by the relevant policy guidance.
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Relation to other roles and activities:
The output of the evaluations is input to the process of assignment,
delegation, and/or population of the registries as performed by the
entity in the Maintenance Role (Section 2.2.2). The evaluations are
performed based on the policies as defined by the Policy role. The
coordination of the evaluation is different from the evaluation of a
request itself: The Evaluation Role handles the request for
allocation or maintenance of a record and may, under guidance of and
in coordination with the policy role, delegate the actual evaluation
to a third party.
2.2.2. Maintenance and Publication of Registry Content Role
Maintenance Role for short.
Key Responsibility:
The maintenance of the registries content: allocating or assigning
parameters after positive evaluation and based on established
policies, keeping appropriate record of transactions, and making the
registries publicly available.
Primary Output:
Easy and convenient access to registry contents, with additions and
updates appearing in a timely manner.
Note:
Registry maintenance and publication are strictly mechanical
functions. In practice the entity that performs those functions will
often perform some or all of the responsibilities of the Policy
Evaluation Coordination. For instance, verification that an
application/registration request is correct is a Policy Evaluation
responsibility that can reasonably be explicitly assigned to the
entity performing the IANA function by the entity that performs the
Policy Development Role.
2.3. The Oversight Role
Description:
The oversight role refers to a high-level responsibility for ensuring
that the other two roles are operating satisfactorily, stepping in if
significant changes are needed in the policies or implementation of a
registry.
Key Responsibility:
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Ensure that policies and the implementation of registries are aligned
in a way that supports the coherent long-term development and use of
shared Internet resources. Coordinate with entities with similar
roles for other registries.
The oversight role is normally isolated with respect to the actual
policy development. That said, it may serve to resolve appeals or
ratify developed policies.
3. Key principles of the IANA framework
Any IANA framework should be implementable with the following key
principles in mind.
Stable and Predictable: Stable and Predictable implementation of the
Internet Registries Function is important for establishing global
trust.
Accountability and transparency: Oversight, implementation, and
policy development roles are accountable to the materially
concerned parties and the wider community. Not all roles may be
directly accountable to the wider community, in practice the
oversight role has responsibility for stewardship of the wider
community. By implication the oversight role must maintain the
highest possible standards of transparency and be open to input
and review.
Separation of Roles: The oversight, policy development, and
implementation roles should be separate or separable. A clear
distinction between the roles enhances the transparency and makes
it clearer who is accountable to who.
Delegation: It should be possible to delegate any of the roles
(policy, implementation, or oversight) for registries or parts
thereof.
4. Discussion
4.1. On Separation of the roles
For many registries there is a de-facto separation of the Policy
Development and the Evaluation coordination that takes place at
implementation. While this has never been an explicit requirement,
it seems that splitting those roles can surface a lack of clarity in
the policies. In addition, having the policy setting, oversight and
evaluation roles separated prevents the evaluation role from being
burdened with perceptions of favoritism and unfairness.
4.2. On Accountability
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Any entity performing one of the roles defined in this framework is
to be held accountable for its responsibilities. Accountability of
each entity needs to be expressed in terms of 'who' and 'how'; to who
is the entity accountable and by which mechanisms is the entity being
held accountable. In other words registry policy development and
registry operations need to be "accountable" to the affected
community.
In practice accountability mechanisms may be defined by memoranda of
understanding or through contractual service level agreements (SLA)
between implementing entities and the oversight body while the
oversight bodies are being held accountable through community review
mechanisms, for instance through recall and appeal processes.
For example: For protocol parameters the general oversight over the
IANA function is performed by the IAB as a chartered responsibility
from [RFC2850] (also see Section 5.4). In addition the IAOC, a body
responsible for IETF administrational and financial matters,
[RFC4071] maintains an SLA with ICANN, thereby specifying the
operational requirements with respect to the the coordination of
evaluation, and the maintenance and publication of the registries.
Both the IAB and the IAOC are accountable to the larger Internet
community and are being held accountable through the IETF Nomcom
process [BCP10].
4.3. On Delegation
Most, if not all, protocol parameter registries were created by the
IETF or its predecessors. Today, most IETF protocols registries are
maintained by the IANA at ICANN. However, nothing in this framework
prohibits the delegation of the oversight, policy, evaluation, or
maintenance role (or any combination of these) of specific protocol
parameter registries to other organizations. In some circumstances,
that may be desirable and allow improved registry management for the
good of the global Internet community.
Delegation of an IANA registry may be desirable for several reasons,
including support for more inclusive registry policy development,
distributing registry operations globally, and accommodating public
policy considerations in registry management. While delegation of an
IANA registry in these situations can improve the registry service
received by the global Internet community, it is not guaranteed to do
so and hence it is incumbent upon the IAB to have clear guidelines
for successful IANA registry delegation. Such guidelines are out of
scope for this document.
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Examples for registries where the responsibility for developing
policy has been delegated in whole or in part include the assignment
of domain names and the assignment of Internet Protocol (IP) address
blocks (both considered policy issues by [RFC2860]), and the
autonomous system (AS) number registry [RFC7020]. [RFC2860]
demonstrates that that delegation can be very specifically bounded:
"Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such
as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of
specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and
(c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues
[...]". These special-purpose names and addresses are assigned in
the same manner as protocol parameters except that coordination is
needed during policy setting and actual assignment of the values.
The oversight bodies may facilitate the coordination. Also see
Policy Examples 2 and 3 in Section 5.1.
4.4. On the Abbility to create Internet Registries
As with the IETF and the corresponding IANA Protocol registries,
other standards bodies (and other institutions) have long histories
of defining and creating registries and the parameters, tables, and
other values that make them up. Those normal practices may obviously
extend to registries and their contents for use on the Internet.
This document does not prescribe how those registries are governed.
Within the context of this document the term Internet Registries is
used for those the registries that are currently organized as Domain
Names, Number Resources, and IETF Protocol Parameter registries.
The (wider) IETF has the authority to create new IETF Protocol
Parameter registries as described in [RFC6220]. The IETF also has
the authority to create registries that pertain to the Domain Name
System, but only for specify technical use [RFC6761]. Finally the
IETF has the (exclusive) authority to make technical assignment for
Number Resources out of the currently reserved address space
([RFC2860] and [RFC4291]).
4.5. On the relation to RFC6220
The authors are aware that this framework uses less, slightly
different, and more generic terms to describe the various roles than
[RFC6220]. [RFC6220] is a document that specifically pertains to the
IETF protocol parameter registries.
For instance, [RFC6220] section 2.1 "Protocol Parameter Registry
Operator Role" describes the full set of responsibilities for the
operator(s) of the IETF Protocol Parameter registries. These
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
responsibilities map to the Implementor aspects in Section 2.2 above.
[RFC6220] also describes the role of the IETF Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC) and IETF Trust. These bodies have
specific responsibilities in the wider IETF and are responsible for
contracting and IPR respectively. Within this framework they should
be considered part of the 'oversight role'.
5. Examples
5.1. Policy Examples
Not coincidentally, the following 3 examples map to how the IANA
registration functions are currently organized: IETF Protocol
Parameter Registries, Number Resources and Domain Names.
5.1.1. Policy Example 1
The IETF, through the IESG (see [RFC6220] section 2.3), acts in this
role when in the "IANA Considerations" sections of its RFCs it
specifies the creation of a new registry, specifies initial entries,
and specifies a policy for adding additional entries to the registry
in the future. [RFC5226] provides guidance and terminology that has
proven useful within the IETF for describing common policies for
managing its registries. Those terms include "Private Use",
"Hierarchical allocation", "First Come First Served", "Expert
Review", "Specification Required", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus",
and "Standards Action". The IETF uses these and, if needed, other
templates to define the policy through which registries are
populated.
5.1.2. Policy Example 2
The Domain Name System (DNS) protocol allows for hierarchical
maintenance of the domain name registries, and publication thereof.
ICANN is currently responsible for change control at the root zone
which includes setting and maintaining policies for that zone.
Change control, policy control, and publication authority follows the
DNS hierarchy; although ICANN is the authoritative entity in the
policy role for the root zone, it is not authoritative for all
domains below the root. For example the IETF sets the policy for
determining which names are allocated in the ietf.org zone. For
country code top-level domains (ccTLD) the policies are set by the
ccTLD registry in coordination with local community, local
regulator(s), and/or other national bodies. Even the policy for
assignment of names within the root is subject nuance. For instance,
ICANN has reserved two letter top-level domains for the use as
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
country and territory code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). The assignment
of two-letter codes themselves (that may consecutively be used as DNS
top-level domains) is done by ISO TC46/WG2 and are maintained by the
ISO 3166 maintenance agency [ISO.3166.2013]. The selection of the
operator of a ccTLD is currently governed by [RFC1591], also see
Section 5.4 Oversight Example 4.
5.1.3. Policy Example 3
IP address allocation and the associated policy development is
distributed too. For instance, the IETF has defined an IPv6 address
range called unicast addresses. For a fraction of that address range
ICANN has been delegated change control (see [RFC3513] section 4 for
details and [GlobAddrPol] for examples). The change control is
further delegated to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) which,
guided by policies set by the regional communities, delegate change
control even further e.g., to Local Internet Registries.
5.2. Evaluation Coordination Role Examples
5.2.1. Evaluation Example 1
As mentioned above, [RFC5226] provides terminology to define common
policies used by IETF registries associated with IETF protocols. One
of the policies that the Policy Role can impose for allocation from a
registry is "Expert Review". In this case a subject matter expert
will evaluate the allocation request and determine whether an
allocation will be made.
An alternative policy for allocation is the requirement for IETF
Consensus. This is where the IETF has first, in its Policy
Development role, set the policy and then, in its Policy Evaluation
role implements it by determining consensus for a particular registry
modification.
The IANA functions operator (currently operated by ICANN) is the
entity that, for the IETF, coordinates the evaluation of registration
requests against policies as set by the IETF.
5.2.2. Evaluation Example 2
IP address allocation policy is developed bottom-up through the
Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities. The RIR communities
perform the Policy Role while at the RIRs the Policy Evaluation Role
is performed by IP-Resource Analysts (or similar) that assess
allocation requests against the policies developed in the Region.
RIR staff often support or even initiate the policy development
process.
5.2.3. Evaluation Example 3
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Generic TLD delegation policy is today developed bottom-up through
ICANN policy processes. As specified in ICANN's bylaws [ADDREF], the
ICANN Board of Trustees (BoT) oversees those process to perform the
Policy Role. The Policy Evaluation Role is performed under the
responsibility of the ICANN BoT; staff and various panels evaluate
applications for new generic top-level domains against the policies
developed via the ICANN Policy Development Processes. In addition,
ICANN staff often support these policy development processes.
5.3. Maintenance and Publication of Registry Content
5.3.1. Maintenance Example 1
ICANN, as the current IANA functions operator, publishes the protocol
parameters registries on the IANA website. Recently the plain-text
tables on that website have been augmented with tables in a
structured machine-readable format. The coordination of the
requirements for publication and the implementation of the technical
systems is part of the publication and maintenance responsibility.
5.3.2. Maintenance Example 2
[EDITORIAL NOTE: Add Reverse DNS and WHOIS content as examples of
publication and maintenance]
5.4. Oversight Examples
5.4.1. Oversight Example 1
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is responsible for overseeing
the process used to create Internet Standards and coordinates with
the other entities that have the oversight role for Internet
Registries.
5.4.2. Oversight Example 2
Collectively, the communities served by the Regional Internet
Registries oversee the policy development for global Internet address
allocation policies.
5.4.3. Oversight Example 3
Collectively, the stakeholders involved in the ICANN policy
development processes serve to oversee the policy development for
generic TLD allocation processes.
Other examples of coordination around IETF protocols are coordination
with the ITU-T when the ENUM protocol started to use E.164
identifiers (telephone numbers)[RFC3245]. Another example is the
coordination between the IETF protocol development process and
reservations of labels at the top-level of the domain name space with
RFC6761 as a recent example.
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
5.4.4. Oversight Example 4
The astute reader might have noticed that in Policy Example 2 in
Section 5.1 the policy by which ccTLD operators are selected refers
to RFC1591. RFC1591 was published in the time that the IANA
functions were executed under the responsibility of Jon Postel and
before institutions like ICANN and the IETF existed and the IAB had a
different set of responsibilities. Should an update of RFC1591 or a
declaration of the historic nature of that document be needed then
such action would most likely involve stewardship and coordination by
the IAB and ICANN.
6. Security Considerations
As discussed in Section Section 1.1 Internet Registries and the model
discussed in this document are critical to elements of Internet
security. However, this document simply discusses that model rather
than changing it and consequently does not directly affect the
security of the Internet.
7. Contributors and Acknowledgemetns
This text has been [is being] developed within the IAB IANA strategy
program. The ideas and many, if not most, text fragments, and
corrections came from or were inspired on comments from: Jaap,
Akkerhuis, Jari Arkko, Marcelo Bagnulo, Mark Blanchet, Brian
Carpenter, David Conrad, John Curran, Leslie Daigle, Elise Gerich,
Russ Housley, John Klensin, Danny McPherson, Thomas Narten, Andrei
Robachevsky, and Greg Wood. Further inspiration and input was drawn
from various meetings with IETF and other Internet community (RIRs,
ISOC, W3C, IETF & IAB) leadership.
8. IANA Considderations
This memo does not contain any specific instruction to any entity in
the Implementer Role.
9. References
[BCP10] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
Dawkins, S., "Nominating Committee Process: Earlier
Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of
Volunteers", BCP 10, RFC 5633, August 2009.
[GlobAddrPol]
"Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number
Resource Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO
Address Council in Accordance with the ASO MoU", July
2005.
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
[ISO.3166.2013]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries and their
subdivisions ", ISO Standard 3166, November 2013.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board, and B. Carpenter, "Charter
of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC
2850, May 2000.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[RFC3245] Klensin, J.IAB, "The History and Context of Telephone
Number Mapping (ENUM) Operational Decisions: Informational
Documents Contributed to ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2)", RFC
3245, March 2002.
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
4071, April 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston,
G.Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and
Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators",
RFC 6220, April 2011.
[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
RFC 6761, February 2013.
[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G. and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013.
Appendix A. Document Editing Details
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
[Text between square brackets starting with initials are editor
notes. Any other text between square brackets assumes an action by
the RFC editor prior to publication as an RFC. In most cases this
will be removal, sometimes a stylistic or editorial choices ore
question is indicated] [This section and its subsections should be
removed at publication as RFC]
Appendix A.1. Version Information
Appendix A.1.1. draft-kolkman-iana-framework-00
This draft is the result of a set of brainstorms in the IAB IANA
program, it does not claim to reflect any consensus.
Appendix A.1.2. draft-kolkman-iana-framework-00 -> draft-iab-iana-
framework-00
Added section "On Accountability" and "On Delegation".
Refined some of the phrasing based on a thorough review by David
Conrad"
Added a reference to [RFC7020] in Section 1.3 and clarified the
informative rather than normative nature of the examples.
Added section Section 3 and changed the name of section Section 4.
Nits and minor edits.
Appendix A.1.3. draft-iab-iana-framework-00 -> draft-iab-iana-
framework-01
Significantly reordered the document by pulling the examples out
of the descriptions of the roles and moving those to section
Section 5.
Split the "Implementation Role" into two different roles
explicitly: Evaluation and Maintenance. Both those roles can be
headed under Implementation aspects.
Refined text about te "what, who and why" and gave an overview in
section Section 1.2
Reworded the text in Section 4.3 to highlight that only the name
assignment is the policy aspect that has been delegated.
Similarly, in section Section 5.1 I tried to illustrate that even
within the domain name assignment in the root there are delegated
policies by introducing the ISO3166 reference.
Added Oversight Example 4 in Section 5.4 as an example of policy
that exists for over a few decades and for which an update would
need coordination
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA framework January 2014
Nits and minor edits.
Appendix A.1.4. TODO
o Possibly add a terminology section with terms like maintenance,
coordination, etc further explained.
o [RFC EDITOR: BCP10 reference [BCP10] needs to be formatted
correctly. The annotation hack used to list multiple RFCs that
make up BCP10 does not seem to work.]
o Review and potentially add clarifying text on the use of 'Internet
Registries' (IP and AS numbers, Domain Names, and IETF Protocol
registries).
Appendix A.2. Subversion information
$Id: iana-framework.xml 30 2014-01-22 11:42:00Z olaf $
Authors' Addresses
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Olaf Kolkman, editor
Stichting NLnet Labs
Science Park 400
Amsterdam, 1098 XH
The Netherlands
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
IAB & Kolkman Expires July 24, 2014 [Page 17]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/