[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 RFC 3438

Network Working Group                                     W. M. Townsley
Internet-Draft                                             cisco Systems
<draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-00.txt>                      April 2002


                    L2TP IANA Considerations Update

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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

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

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

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes updates to the IANA considerations for the
   Layer Two Tunneling Protocol.















Townsley                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT      L2TP IANA Considerations Update           April 2002


   Contents

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

   1.  Introduction.............................................    2

   2.  IANA Considerations......................................    2

   3.  Normative References.....................................    4

   4.  Security Considerations..................................    4

   5.  Acknowledgements.........................................    4

   6.  Author's Address.........................................    4

1.  Introduction

   This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
   Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in [RFC2661], in
   accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].

1.1.  Specification of Requirements

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  The key
   words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
   "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
   are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
   26:  "name space", "assigned value", "registration".

   The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
   26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
   "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".

2.  IANA Considerations

   L2TP [RFC2661] defines a number of "magic" numbers to be maintained
   by the IANA.  This section updates the criteria to be used by the
   IANA to assign additional numbers in each of these lists.

   Each of the values identified in this document which require a
   registration criteria update are currently maintained by IANA and



Townsley                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT      L2TP IANA Considerations Update           April 2002


   have a range of values from 0 to 65 535, of which a very small number
   have been allocated (the maximum number allocated within any one
   range is 46) [IANA-L2TP]. Given the nature of these values, it is not
   expected that any will ever run into a resource allocation problem if
   registration allocation requirements are relaxed from their current
   state.

   The recommended criteria changes for IANA registration is listed in
   the following sections. In one case, the registration criteria is
   currently defined as First Come First Served and should be made more
   strict, others are defined as IETF Consensus and need to be relaxed.
   The relaxation from IETF Consensus is motivated by specific cases
   where values that were never intended to be vendor-specific have had
   to enter early field trials or be released in generally available
   products with vendor-specific values while awaiting documents to be
   formalized. In most cases this results in products that have to
   support both the vendor-specific value and IETF value indefinitely.

   For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
   consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the
   Designated Expert.

   For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the l2tpext
   mailing list should be consulted.

   The basic guideline for the Expert Review process will be to approve
   assignment of a value only if there is a document being advanced
   which clearly defines the values to be assigned, and there is active
   implementation development (perhaps entering early field or
   interoperability trails, requiring assigned values to proceed without
   having to resort to a chosen vendor-specific method).

2.1.  Control Message AVPs

   IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Control Message Attribute Value
   Pairs" [IANAL2TP], of which 0 - 46 have been assigned. The criteria
   for assignment was originally IETF Consensus.  Further values should
   be assigned upon Expert Review.

2.2.  Message Type AVP Values

   IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Message Type AVP (Attribute
   Type 0) Values" [IANA-L2TP], of which 0 - 16 have been assigned. The
   criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus.  Further
   values should be assigned upon Expert Review.

2.3.  Result Code AVP Values




Townsley                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT      L2TP IANA Considerations Update           April 2002


   IANA maintains a list of "Result Code values for the StopCCN
   message," "Result Code values for the CDN message," and "General
   Error Codes" [IANAL2TP]. The criteria for Error Code assignment was
   originally First Come First Served, and the criteria for CDN and
   StopCCN Result Codes was originally IETF Consensus.  Further values
   for all Result and Error codes should be assigned upon Expert Review.

2.4.  Remaining Values

   All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned
   specifically in this document remain as is.

3.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2434]  Alvestrand, H. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
              Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [RFC2661]  Townsley W., et al., "Layer Two Tunneling Layer Two Tunneling
              Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661, August 1999.

   [L2TPIANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two
              Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661",
              http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters

4.  Security Considerations

   This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security
   considerations.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Some of this text and much of the format of this document was taken
   from an Internet draft on EAP IANA Considerations authored by Bernard
   Aboba.

6.  Author's Address

   W. Mark Townsley
   cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
   mark@townsley.net





Townsley                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/