[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 6220) 00 01 02 03 04

Internet Architecture Board(IAB)                       D. McPherson, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           O. Kolkman, Ed.
Obsoletes: 6220 (if approved)                                       ISOC
Intended status: Informational                         J.C. Klensin, Ed.
Expires: 20 April 2020                                    G. Huston, Ed.
                                                                   APNIC
                                                                       -
                                             Internet Architecture Board
                                                         18 October 2019


   Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry
                               Operators
                     draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6220bis-04

Abstract

   Many Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) protocols make use of
   commonly defined values that are passed in messages or packets.  To
   ensure consistent interpretation of these values between independent
   implementations, there is a need to ensure that the values and
   associated semantic intent are uniquely defined.  The IETF uses
   registry functions to record assigned protocol parameter values and
   their associated semantic intentions.  For each IETF protocol
   parameter, it is current practice for the IETF to delegate the role
   of Protocol Parameter Registry Operator to a nominated entity.  This
   document provides a description of, and the requirements for, these
   delegated functions.  This document obsoletes RFC 6220 to replace all
   references to the IASA and related structures with those defined by
   the IASA 2.0 Model.

[Cover Note]

   [The IASA2 WG asks the IAB to publish this replacement for RFC 6220.
   This document is changed for alignment with the new structure for the
   IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). ]

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.





McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


   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 20 April 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol
           Parameter Registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  IAB Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  IESG Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Role of the IETF Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability
           Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Miscellaneous Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix B.  IAB members  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix C.  Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     C.1.  Version Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       C.1.1.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       C.1.2.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       C.1.3.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       C.1.4.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-03  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       C.1.5.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-04  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     C.2.  RCS information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14




McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


1.  Overview

   Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are
   passed within messages or packets.  To ensure consistent
   interpretation of these values between independent implementations,
   there is a need to ensure that the values and associated semantic
   intent are uniquely defined.  The IETF uses registries to record each
   of the possible values of a protocol parameter and their associated
   semantic intent.  These registries, their registration policy, and
   the layout of their content are defined in the so-called "IANA
   Considerations" sections of IETF documents.

   The organizational separation between the IETF and its Registry
   Operators parallels ones that are fairly common among standards
   development organizations (SDOs) although less common among
   technology consortia and similar bodies.  These functions have been
   separated into different organizations for several reasons.  They
   include dealing with administrative issues, addressing concerns about
   maintaining an adequate distance between basic policy and specific
   allocations, and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest that
   might arise from commercial or organizational relationships.  For
   example, most ISO and ISO/IEC JTC1 standards that require
   registration activities specify a Registration Authority (RA) or
   Maintenance Agency (MA) that, in turn, control the actual
   registration decisions.  The databases of what is registered for each
   standard may then be maintained by a secretariat or database function
   associated with the RA or MA or, less frequently, by the secretariat
   of the body that created and maintains the standard itself.

   This structural separation of roles exists within several places in
   the IETF framework (e.g., the RFC Editor function).  The Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB), on behalf of the IETF, has the
   responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the
   Protocol Registry Operator role.  This responsibility includes the
   selection and management of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator,
   as well as management of the parameter registration process and the
   guidelines for parameter allocation.

   As with other SDOs, although it may delegate authority for some
   specific decisions, the IETF asserts authority and responsibility for
   the management of all of its protocol parameters and their
   registries, even while it generally remains isolated from the
   selection of particular values once a registration is approved.  This
   document describes the function of these registries as they apply to
   individual protocol parameters defined by the IETF Internet Standards
   Process [RFC6410] to allow for an orderly implementation by the IETF
   Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC), and others as
   needed, under guidance from the IAB.  This document obsoletes RFC



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


   6220 to replace all references to the IASA and related structures
   with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis].

   Below we provide a description of the requirements for these
   delegated functions, which the IETF traditionally refers to as the
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function.

2.  Roles and Responsibilities Concerning IETF Protocol Parameter
    Registries

   The IETF's longstanding practice is to outsource the management and
   implementation of some important functions (e.g.,
   [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis]).  The protocol parameter registry
   function falls into this category of outsourced functions, and what
   follows here is the description of the roles and responsibilities
   with respect to the registration of IETF protocol parameters.

   Specifically, this document describes the operation and role of a
   delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, to be selected
   and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
   [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis].  While there is generally a single
   Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, additional Operators may be
   selected to implement specific registries, and that has been done
   occasionally.  Having a single Operator facilitates coordination
   among registries, even those that are not obviously related, and also
   makes it easier to have consistency of formats and registry
   structure, which aids users of the registries and assists with
   quality control.

   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
   algorithm for IPsec).  To ensure that such quantities have consistent
   values and interpretations in different implementations, their
   assignment must be administered by a central authority.  For IETF
   protocols, that role is provided by a delegated Protocol Parameter
   Registry Operator.  For any particular protocol parameter there is a
   single delegated Registry Operator.

2.1.  Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role

   The IETF Protocol Parameter Registry function is undertaken under the
   auspices of the Internet Architecture Board.

   The roles of the Protocol Parameter Registry Operator are as follows:

   *  Review and Advise



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


      -  A Registry Operator may be requested to review Internet-Drafts
         that are being considered by the Internet Engineering Steering
         Group (IESG), with the objective of offering advice to the IESG
         regarding the contents of the "IANA Considerations" section,
         whether such a section, when required, is clear in terms of
         direction to the Registry Operator, and whether the section is
         consistent with the current published Registry Operator
         guidelines.

   *  Registry

      -  To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments.

      -  The delegated Registry Operator registers values for Internet
         protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and
         procedures specified in RFCs, including Standard Track
         Documents [BCP9], Best Current Practice documents, and other
         RFCs that require protocol parameter assignment.

         If values for Internet protocol parameters were not specified,
         or in case of ambiguity, the Registry Operator will continue to
         assign and register only those protocol parameters that have
         already been delegated to the Operator, following past and
         current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise
         directed in terms of operating practice by the IESG.  In the
         case of ambiguity, the Registry Operator is expected to
         identify the ambiguity to the IAB or IESG as appropriate and
         either suggest better text or ask the appropriate parties for
         clarification.

      -  For each protocol parameter, the associated registry includes:

         o  a reference to the RFC document that describes the parameter
            and the associated "IANA Considerations" concerning the
            parameter, and

         o  for each registration of a protocol parameter value, the
            source of the registration and the date of the registration,
            if the date of registration is known, and

         o  any other information specified as being included in the
            registration data in the RFC document that describes the
            parameter.

         o  If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the Registry
            Operator will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively
            from the IESG.  Where appropriate, the IESG will appoint an
            expert to advise the Registry Operator.



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


      -  The Registry Operator will work with the IETF to develop any
         missing criteria and procedures over time, which the Registry
         Operator will adopt when so instructed by the IESG.

      -  Unless special circumstances apply to subsets of the data and
         specific rules are established by IETF consensus, each protocol
         parameter registry operates as a public registry, and the
         contents of the registry are openly available to the public,
         on-line and free of charge.

      -  The Registry Operator assigns protocol parameter values in
         accordance with the policy associated with the protocol
         parameter, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review"
         [RFC8126].

   *  Mailing Lists

      -  The Registry Operator maintains public mailing lists as
         specified in IANA Considerations [RFC8126].  Such lists are
         designated for the purpose of review of assignment proposals in
         conjunction with a designated expert review function.  In
         addition, each Protocol Parameter Registry Operator should
         maintain a mailing list that enables the registry staff of the
         Registry Operator to be contacted by email.

   *  Liaison Activity

      -  The Registry Operator will nominate a liaison point of contact.
         The Registry Operator, through this liaison, may be requested
         to provide advice to the IESG on IETF protocol parameters as
         well as the "IANA Considerations" section of each Internet-
         Draft that is being reviewed for publication as an RFC.  Where
         appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the
         Registry Operator.

   *  Reporting

      -  The Registry Operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB
         concerning the operational performance of the registry
         function.  As an example of the requirements for such reports,
         the reader is referred to a supplement [MoU_SUPP2019] to the
         "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of
         the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC2860] that
         provides service level agreement (SLA) guidelines under which
         ICANN, the current protocol parameter registry, must operate.

      -  At the request of the chair of the IETF or IAB, or the IETF
         Executive Director [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis], the Registry



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


         Operator will undertake periodic reports to IETF Plenary
         meetings, or elsewhere as they may direct, concerning the
         status of the registry function.

      -  The Registry Operator will publish an annual report describing
         the status of the function and a summary of performance
         indicators.

   *  Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator

      Unless special circumstances apply (see above):

      -  All assigned values are to be published and made available free
         of any charges.

      -  The assignment values may be redistributed without
         modification.

      In any case,

      -  any intellectual property rights of the IETF protocol parameter
         assignment information, including the IETF protocol parameter
         registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust
         [BCP101].

2.2.  IAB Role

   An Operator of an IETF protocol parameter registry undertakes the
   role as a delegated function under the authority of the IAB.

   The IAB has the responsibility to review the current description of
   the registry function from time to time and direct the Registry
   Operator to adopt amendments relating to its role and mode of
   operation according to the best interests of the IETF and the
   Internet community in general.

   The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to
   undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter Registry
   Operator for each IETF protocol parameter.  Specifically, the IAB
   defines the role and requirements for the desired functions.  The
   IETF LLC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor, and once
   under agreement, managing the various aspects of the relationships
   with that vendor.  To be clear, the IAB is in the deciding role
   (e.g., for appointment and termination), but must work in close
   consultation with the IETF LLC.

   The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions
   of this delegated role.  Such terms and conditions should ensure that



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


   the registry operates in a manner that is fully conformant to the
   functions described in this document.  In addition, such terms and
   conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF
   with respect to the registry contents and maintenance.

2.3.  IESG Role

   The IESG is responsible for the technical direction regarding entries
   into IETF protocol parameter registries and maintaining the policies
   by which such technical directions are given.  Technical direction
   itself is provided through the adoption of directives within the
   "IANA Considerations" section of IETF Stream RFCs or through stand-
   alone "IANA Considerations" RFCs.

   The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts that are offered for
   publication as IETF Stream RFCs [RFC4844] include "IANA
   Considerations" sections when needed, and that "IANA Considerations"
   sections conform to the current published guidelines.

   Since technical assessment is not generally a responsibility of the
   Registry Operator, as part of providing the technical direction the
   IESG is responsible for identifying the technical experts that are
   required to, where appropriate, review registration requests or
   resolve open technical questions that relate to the registration of
   parameters.

   At its discretion, the IESG will organize the liaison activities with
   the Registry Operator's liaison point of contact so as to facilitate
   clear communications and effective operation of the registry
   function.

2.4.  Role of the IETF Trust

   The IETF Trust [RFC4371] was formed to act as the administrative
   custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights
   relating to the IETF Standards Process, a function that had
   previously been performed by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the
   Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI).

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

   The IETF Trust may make such regulations as appropriate for the
   redistribution of assignment values and registry publications.





McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


2.5.  Role of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company

   The IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC)
   [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] is responsible for identifying a
   potential vendor in a manner of its choosing, based on IAB
   consultation, and for managing the various aspects of the
   relationships with that vendor.

   In addition, the IETF LLC has the responsibility to ensure long-term
   access, stability, and uniqueness across all such registries.  This
   responsibility is of particular significance in the event that a
   relation with a Protocol Parameter Registry Operator is terminated.

3.  Miscellaneous Considerations

   While this document has focused on the creation of protocols by the
   IETF, the requirements provided are generically applicable to the
   extended IETF community as well (e.g., Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF)).

   The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF
   Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies by which
   such technical directions are given.  The IESG is responsible, as
   part of the document approval process associated with the IETF Stream
   RFCs [RFC4844], for "IANA Considerations" verification.  For the
   other RFC streams, the approval bodies are responsible for verifying
   that the documents include "IANA Considerations" sections when
   needed, and that "IANA Considerations" sections conform to the
   current published guidelines.  In the case that IANA considerations
   in non-IETF document streams lead to a dispute, the IAB makes the
   final decision.

   This document talks about "Registry Operator" (singular), and while
   there are stability and economy-of-scale advantages for one single
   Operator, this document does not exclude having different Operators
   for different protocol registries when justified by the
   circumstances.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not propose any new protocols and does not
   introduce any new security considerations.









McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no direct IANA actions in terms of the
   creation or operation of a protocol parameter registry.  However,
   this document does define the roles and responsibilities of various
   bodies who are responsible for, and associated with, the operation of
   protocol parameter registration functions for the IETF.

6.  Informative References

   [BCP101]   Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, April 2005.

              Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
              IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, January 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]
              Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
              the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-iasa2-
              rfc4071bis-11, 12 April 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-
              11>.

   [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis]
              Kolkman, O., Halpern, J., and R. Hinden, "RFC Editor Model



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


              (Version 2)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-04, 4 October 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-
              04>.

   [MoU_SUPP2019]
              "ICANN/IANA-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement, 2019",
              October 2019.
              https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/FINAL_2019-IETF_MoU_S
              upplemental_Agreement_Signed_31July19.pdf.

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
              July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.

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

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

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   This document was originally adapted from "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], and has been modified
   to include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights and the
   roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF Protocol Parameter
   Registry function.

   The document was updated under auspicies of the IASA2.0 working group
   to reflect the reorganization of IETF Administrative Support
   Activity.

   The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided
   by reviewers of drafts of this document, including Scott Bradner,
   Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Adrian Farrel, Bob Hinden, Alfred
   Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, Benjamin Kaduk, Alexey Melnikov, Thomas Narten,
   and Ray Pelletier.



McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


Appendix B.  IAB members

   Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was
   approved for publication were [To Be Confirmed]:

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

Appendix C.  Document Editing Details

   [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, so should the Cover Note]

   Some notes for the RFC Editor.

   *  There are a few places where I've added a reference to
      [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] mainly in places where I am not sure
      if we should assume prior knowledge from the reader.  E.g. whether
      the Executive Director can be presumed to be a known term in the
      context of this document.  Guidance is accepted.

      Editorial Issue: By using a referencegroup for BCP9 and BCP101 I
      seem to have lost to refer to specific RFCs within the reference
      group i.e. I have references to RFC6410 and RFC4371 specifically
      that I can't resolve because these are inside a reference group.
      I would like to retain the specific reference in the places where
      I use the RFC reference and the generic reference where I use the
      BCP reference.  I presume the RFC editor can and will resolve
      this.

      There is a remaining '-' in order to get the organizational name




McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


      (Internet Architecture Board) printed without any attributes in
      the author tag.

C.1.  Version Information

C.1.1.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-00

      Original RFC text back ported into XML.  With only Editor
      affiliation changed and IAB members section emptied

C.1.2.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-01

   *  Changed references to IAOC to LLC
   *  While reviewing the section on the Trust: Modified reference to
      RFC 4748 to reference to RFC4371, as that document establishes the
      Trust while 4748 is technically an update of RFC 3978 (now
      obsoleted).
   *  Updated reference to ICANN-IETF MoU to most recent version (2018)
      [MoU_SUPP2019] .

C.1.3.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-02

   *  Standardized on "IETF LLC" as the sort version for the entity (per
      RFC style guide).
   *  Changed "At the request of the chair of the IETF, IAB, or LLC," to
      "At the request of the chair of the IETF or IAB, or the IETF
      Executive Director", in the same paragraph: The reporting of the
      registry operator does not necessarily need to take place in IETF
      Plenary, it may happen elsewhere.  Text changed to reflect as
      much.
   *  BCP101 is a better reference than exclusively referring to
      RFC4371.  The way the reference is provided needs RFC Editor
      attention.
   *  IDnits complained about rfc5226 being obsoleted.  One of the
      rfc5226 references is used for historical context in the
      acknowledgement section, in other places it was replaced by 8126.
   *  IDnits complained about rfc5620 being obsoleted.  The reference to
      5620 is replaced by rfc6635bis-rfc editor model (not including
      rfc6548bis-independent rfc editor, as it just serves as an example
      and does not intend to describe the full RFC Editor universe).
   *  Updated the Acknowledgement section

C.1.4.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-03

   *  Changed reference for IASA2 structure to
      [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]





McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


C.1.5.  draft-iab-iasa2-rfc6220-04

   *  Migrated source from XML2RFC v2 to v3, which caused some changes
      in layout.
   *  Added obsoletion of 6220 sentence to Abstract and Introduction.
   *  Changed reference in introduction from [RFC2026] to [BCP9],
      cleaned up the reference to [BCP101]
   *  In Section 2.1 changed: "Proposed, Draft, and full Internet
      Standards" to "Standard Track Documents [RFC6410]"
   *  upgraded reference to ICANN MOU to the 2019 version
      [MoU_SUPP2019].
   *  In the paragraphs on IPR, just before Section 2.2, I clarifed that
      there may be circumstances where the vallues are not public.  This
      to make the text consistent.
   *  Updated IAB membership.

C.2.  RCS information

   $Id: rfc6220bis.xml,v 1.10 2019/10/18 13:29:40 olaf Exp $

Authors' Addresses

   Danny McPherson (editor)
   Verisign, Inc.

   Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com


   Olaf Kolkman (editor)
   Inter
        net Society

   Email: kolkman@isoc.org


   John C Klensin (editor)

   Email: john+ietf@jck.com


   Geoff Huston (editor)
   APNIC

   Email: gih@apnic.net


   Internet Architecture Board




McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Role of Registry Operators           October 2019


   Email: iab@iab.org


















































McPherson, et al.         Expires 20 April 2020                [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/