< draft-thaler-iftype-reg-03.txt   draft-thaler-iftype-reg-04.txt >
Network Working Group D. Thaler Network Working Group D. Thaler
Internet-Draft Microsoft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Updates: 2863 (if approved) D. Romascanu Updates: 2863 (if approved) D. Romascanu
Intended status: Standards Track Independent Intended status: Standards Track Independent
Expires: January 6, 2020 July 05, 2019 Expires: January 8, 2020 July 07, 2019
Guidelines and Registration Procedures for Interface Types and Tunnel Guidelines and Registration Procedures for Interface Types and Tunnel
Types Types
draft-thaler-iftype-reg-03 draft-thaler-iftype-reg-04
Abstract Abstract
The registration and use of interface types ("ifType" values) The registration and use of interface types ("ifType" values)
predated the use of IANA Considerations sections and YANG modules, predated the use of IANA Considerations sections and YANG modules,
and so confusion has arisen about the interface type allocation and so confusion has arisen about the interface type allocation
process. Tunnel types were then added later, with the same process. Tunnel types were then added later, with the same
requirements and allocation policy as interface types. This document requirements and allocation policy as interface types. This document
provides updated guidelines for the definition of new interface types provides updated guidelines for the definition of new interface types
and tunnel types, for consideration by those who are defining, and tunnel types, for consideration by those who are defining,
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Interface Sub-Layers and Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Interface Sub-Layers and Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Available Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Alternate Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Available Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Media-specific OID-subtree assignments . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Media-specific OID-subtree assignments . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Submitting Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3.1. ifType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3.2. tunnelType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Submitting Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IANA IfType-MIB was originally defined in [RFC1573] as a separate The IANA IfType-MIB was originally defined in [RFC1573] as a separate
MIB module together with the Interfaces Group MIB (IF-MIB) module. MIB module together with the Interfaces Group MIB (IF-MIB) module.
The IF-MIB module has since been updated and is currently specified The IF-MIB module has since been updated and is currently specified
in [RFC2863], but this latest IF-MIB RFC no longer contains the IANA in [RFC2863], but this latest IF-MIB RFC no longer contains the IANA
IfType-MIB. Instead, the IANA IfType-MIB is now maintained as a IfType-MIB. Instead, the IANA IfType-MIB is now maintained as a
separate module. Similarly, [RFC7224] created an initial IANA separate module. Similarly, [RFC7224] created an initial IANA
Interface Type YANG Module, and the current version is maintained by Interface Type YANG Module, and the current version is maintained by
IANA. IANA.
The current IANA IfType registry is in [yang-if-type], [ifType], and The current IANA IfType registry is at [ifType-registry], with the
the IANAifType textual convention at [IANAifType-MIB]. same values also appearing in [yang-if-type], and the IANAifType
textual convention at [IANAifType-MIB].
Although the ifType registry was originally defined in a MIB module, Although the ifType registry was originally defined in a MIB module,
the assignment and use of interface type values are not tied to MIB the assignment and use of interface type values are not tied to MIB
modules or any other management mechanism. Interface type values can modules or any other management mechanism. Interface type values can
be used as values of data model objects (MIB objects, YANG objects, be used as values of data model objects (MIB objects, YANG objects,
etc.), as parts of a unique identifier of a data model for a given etc.), as parts of a unique identifier of a data model for a given
interface type (e.g., in an OID), or simply as values exposed by interface type (e.g., in an OID), or simply as values exposed by
local APIs or UI on a device. local APIs or UI on a device.
The TUNNEL-MIB was then defined in [RFC2667] (now obsoleted by The TUNNEL-MIB was then defined in [RFC2667] (now obsoleted by
[RFC4087]) which created a tunnelType registry ([tunnelType] and the [RFC4087]) which created a tunnelType registry ([tunnelType-registry]
IANAtunnelType textual convention at [IANAifType-MIB]) and defined and the IANAtunnelType textual convention at [IANAifType-MIB]) and
the assignment policy for tunnelType values to always be identical to defined the assignment policy for tunnelType values to always be
the policy for assigning ifType values. identical to the policy for assigning ifType values.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Problems 3. Problems
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
modules as another format, as to whether each format is a modules as another format, as to whether each format is a
separate registry. This is discussed in Section 5. separate registry. This is discussed in Section 5.
4. The registries are retrievable in the format of MIB and YANG 4. The registries are retrievable in the format of MIB and YANG
modules, but there was no process guidance written to check that modules, but there was no process guidance written to check that
those formats were syntactically correct as updates were made, those formats were syntactically correct as updates were made,
which led to the registry having syntax errors that broke tools. which led to the registry having syntax errors that broke tools.
Section 6.1 adds a validation step to the documented assignment Section 6.1 adds a validation step to the documented assignment
procedure. procedure.
5. Transmission values [transmission] have often been allocated as 5. Transmission values [transmission-registry] have often been
part of ifType [ifType] allocation, but no guidance exists about allocated as part of ifType allocation, but no guidance exists
whether a requester must ask for it or not, and the request form about whether a requester must ask for it or not, and the request
has no such required field. As a result, IANA has asked the form has no such required field. As a result, IANA has asked the
Designated Expert to decide for each allocation, but no relevant Designated Expert to decide for each allocation, but no relevant
guidance for the Designated Expert has been documented. This is guidance for the Designated Expert has been documented. This is
remedied in Section 6.2. remedied in Section 6.2.
6. Various documents and registries said to submit requests via 6. Various documents and registries said to submit requests via
email, but a web form exists for submitting requests, which email, but a web form exists for submitting requests, which
caused some confusion around which is to be used. This is caused some confusion around which is to be used. This is
discussed in Section 7. discussed in Section 7.
4. Interface Sub-Layers and Sub-Types 4. Interface Sub-Layers and Sub-Types
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
its own sub-layer that provides the missing details), or a sub-type its own sub-layer that provides the missing details), or a sub-type
model (i.e., each vendor might subclass the protocol without any model (i.e., each vendor might subclass the protocol without any
layering relationship). If a sub-type model is more appropriate, layering relationship). If a sub-type model is more appropriate,
then the data model for the protocol might include a sub-type then the data model for the protocol might include a sub-type
identifier so that management software can discover objects specific identifier so that management software can discover objects specific
to the subtype. In either case, such discussion is important to to the subtype. In either case, such discussion is important to
guide definers of a data model for the more specific information guide definers of a data model for the more specific information
(i.e., a lower sub-layer or a subtype), as well as the Designated (i.e., a lower sub-layer or a subtype), as well as the Designated
Expert that must review requests for any such ifTypes or sub-types. Expert that must review requests for any such ifTypes or sub-types.
4.1. Alternate Values
Another design decision is whether to reuse an existing ifType or
tunnelType value, possibly using a sub-type or sub-layer model for
refinements, or to use a different value for a new mechanism.
If there is already an entry that could easily satisfy the modeling
and functional requirements for the requested entry, it should be
reused so that applications and tools that use the existing value can
be used without changes. If however, the modeling and functional
requirements are significantly different enough such that having
existing applications and tools use the existing value would be seen
as a problem, a new value should be used.
For example, originally multiple ifType values were used for
different flavors of Ethernet (ethernetCsmacd(6), iso88023Csmacd(7),
fastEther(62), etc.), typically because they were registered by
multiple vendors. [RFC3635] then deprecated all but
ethernetCsmacd(6), since using different values was seen as
problematic since all were functionally similar.
As another example, the Teredo tunnel protocol [RFC4380] encapsulates
packets over UDP, and a udp(8) tunnelType value was defined in
[RFC2667], with the description "The value UDP indicates that the
payload packet is encapsulated within a normal UDP packet (e.g., RFC
1234)." However, the protocol model is quite different between
[RFC1234] and Teredo. For example, [RFC1234] supports encapsulation
of multicast/broadcast traffic whereas Teredo does not. As such, it
would be more confusing to applications and tools to represent them
using the same tunnel type, and so [RFC4087] defined a new value for
Teredo.
In summary, definers of new interface or tunnel mechanisms should use
a new ifType or tunnelType value rather than reusing an existing
value when key aspects such as the header format or the link model
(point-to-point, non-broadcast multi-access, broadcast capable multi-
access, unidirectional broadcast, etc.) are significantly different
from existing values, but reuse the same value when the differences
can be expressed in terms of differing values of existing objects,
other than ifType/tunnelType, in the standard YANG or MIB module.
5. Available Formats 5. Available Formats
Many registries are available in multiple formats. For example, XML, Many registries are available in multiple formats. For example, XML,
HTML, CSV, and Plain text are common formats in which many registries HTML, CSV, and Plain text are common formats in which many registries
are available. This document clarifies that MIB modules and YANG are available. This document clarifies that the [IANAifType-MIB],
modules are merely two additional formats in which the ifType and [yang-if-type], and [yang-tunnel-type] MIB and YANG modules are
tunnelType formats are available. They are not separate registries, merely additional formats in which the ifType and tunnelType
and the same values are always present in all formats of the same registries are available. The MIB and YANG modules are not separate
registry. registries, and the same values are always present in all formats of
the same registry.
CURRENT: The confusion stems in part due to the fact that the IANA CURRENT: The confusion stems in part due to the fact that the IANA
"Protocol Registries" [protocol-registries] lists the YANG and MIB "Protocol Registries" [protocol-registries] lists the YANG and MIB
module formats separately, as if they were separate registries. module formats separately, as if they were separate registries.
However, the entries for the yang-if-type and iana-tunnel-type YANG However, the entries for the yang-if-type and iana-tunnel-type YANG
modules say "See ifType definitions registry." and "See tunnelType modules say "See ifType definitions registry." and "See tunnelType
registry (mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType)." registry (mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType)."
respectively, and the entry for the IANAifType-MIB has no such note. respectively, although the entry for the IANAifType-MIB has no such
note.
PROPOSED: It is proposed to clarify the relationship for the ifType PROPOSED: It is proposed to clarify the relationship for the ifType
and tunnelType registries as follows: and tunnelType registries as follows:
1. Add the following note to the entry for the IANAifType-MIB at 1. Add the following note to the entry for the IANAifType-MIB at
[protocol-registries]: "This is one of the available formats of [protocol-registries]: "This is one of the available formats of
the ifType and tunnelType registries." the ifType and tunnelType registries."
2. Change the note on the entry for the iana-if-type YANG module at 2. Change the note on the entry for the iana-if-type YANG module at
[protocol-registries] to read: "This is one of the available [protocol-registries] to read: "This is one of the available
formats of the ifType registry." formats of the ifType registry."
3. Change the note on the entry for the iana-tunnel-type YANG module 3. Change the note on the entry for the iana-tunnel-type YANG module
at [protocol-registries] to read: "This is one of the available at [protocol-registries] to read: "This is one of the available
formats of the tunnelType registry." formats of the tunnelType registry."
4. Create a section for "Interface Parameters" at 4. Create a section for "Interface Parameters" at
[protocol-registries], with entries for "Interface Types [protocol-registries], with entries for "Interface Types
(ifType)" [ifType], "Tunnel Types (tunnelType)" [tunnelType], and (ifType)" [ifType-registry], "Tunnel Types (tunnelType)"
"Transmission Values" [transmission].
5. Update the ifType definitions registry [ifType] to list MIB [tunnelType-registry], and "Transmission Values"
[IANAifType-MIB] and YANG [yang-if-type] as Available Formats. [transmission-registry].
6. Update the tunnelType definitions registry [tunnelType] to list 5. Update the ifType definitions registry [ifType-registry] to list
MIB [IANAifType-MIB] and YANG [yang-tunnel-type] as Available MIB [IANAifType-MIB] and YANG [yang-if-type] as Available
Formats, and change the title to "tunnelType Definitions" for Formats.
consistency with the [ifType] title.
6. Update the tunnelType definitions registry [tunnelType-registry]
to list MIB [IANAifType-MIB] and YANG [yang-tunnel-type] as
Available Formats, and change the title to "tunnelType
Definitions" for consistency with the [ifType-registry] title.
7. Replace the [yang-if-type] page with the YANG module content, 7. Replace the [yang-if-type] page with the YANG module content,
rather than having a page that itself claims to have multiple rather than having a page that itself claims to have multiple
Available Formats. Available Formats.
8. Replace the [yang-tunnel-type] page with the YANG module content, 8. Replace the [yang-tunnel-type] page with the YANG module content,
rather than having a page that itself claims to have multiple rather than having a page that itself claims to have multiple
Available Formats. Available Formats.
6. Registration 6. Registration
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
will reject the registration request. A registrant can resubmit will reject the registration request. A registrant can resubmit
a corrected request if desired. a corrected request if desired.
2. IANA requests Expert Review of the registration request against 2. IANA requests Expert Review of the registration request against
the corresponding guidelines from this document. the corresponding guidelines from this document.
3. The Designated Expert will evaluate the request against the 3. The Designated Expert will evaluate the request against the
criteria. criteria.
4. Once the Designated Expert approves registration, IANA updates 4. Once the Designated Expert approves registration, IANA updates
[ifType], [IANAifType-MIB], and [yang-if-type] to show the [ifType-registry], [IANAifType-MIB], and [yang-if-type] to show
registration for an Interface Type, or [tunnelType], the registration for an Interface Type, or [tunnelType-registry],
[IANAifType-MIB], and [yang-tunnel-type] to show the registration [IANAifType-MIB], and [yang-tunnel-type] to show the registration
for a Tunnel Type. When adding values, IANA should verify that for a Tunnel Type. When adding values, IANA should verify that
the updated MIB module and YANG module formats are syntactically the updated MIB module and YANG module formats are syntactically
correct before publishing the update. There are various existing correct before publishing the update. There are various existing
tools or web sites that can be used to do this verification. tools or web sites that can be used to do this verification.
5. If instead the Designated Expert does not approve registration 5. If instead the Designated Expert does not approve registration
(e.g., for any of the reasons in [RFC8126] section 3), a (e.g., for any of the reasons in [RFC8126] section 3), a
registrant can resubmit a corrected request if desired, or the registrant can resubmit a corrected request if desired, or the
IESG can override the Designated Expert and approve it per the IESG can override the Designated Expert and approve it per the
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
numbering space is not scarce, so there seems little need to reserve numbering space is not scarce, so there seems little need to reserve
the number for a different purpose than what the ifType is for. (3) the number for a different purpose than what the ifType is for. (3)
The Designated Expert need not review whether a transmission number The Designated Expert need not review whether a transmission number
value should be registered when processing each ifType request, thus value should be registered when processing each ifType request, thus
reducing the possibility of delaying assignment of ifType values. (4) reducing the possibility of delaying assignment of ifType values. (4)
There is no case on record where allocating the same value could have There is no case on record where allocating the same value could have
caused any problem. caused any problem.
6.3. Registration Template 6.3. Registration Template
This template describes the fields that MUST be supplied in a 6.3.1. ifType
registration request suitable for adding to the ifType registry:
The following template describes the fields that MUST be supplied in
a registration request suitable for adding to the ifType registry:
Label for IANA ifType requested: As explained in Section 7.1.1 of Label for IANA ifType requested: As explained in Section 7.1.1 of
[RFC2578], a label for a named-number enumeration must consist of [RFC2578], a label for a named-number enumeration must consist of
one or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters, one or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters,
and the initial character must be a lower-case letter. (However, and the initial character must be a lower-case letter. (However,
labels longer than 32 characters are not recommended.) Note that labels longer than 32 characters are not recommended.) Note that
hyphens are not allowed. hyphens are not allowed.
Name of IANA ifType requested: A short description (e.g., a protocol Name of IANA ifType requested: A short description (e.g., a protocol
name), suitable to appear in a comment in the registry. name), suitable to appear in a comment in the registry.
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 6
Name of IANA ifType requested: A short description (e.g., a protocol Name of IANA ifType requested: A short description (e.g., a protocol
name), suitable to appear in a comment in the registry. name), suitable to appear in a comment in the registry.
Description of the proposed use of the IANA ifType: Requesters MUST Description of the proposed use of the IANA ifType: Requesters MUST
include answers, either directly or via a link to some document include answers, either directly or via a link to some document
with the answers, to the following questions in the explanation of with the answers, to the following questions in the explanation of
the proposed use of the IANA IfType: the proposed use of the IANA IfType:
o How would IP run over your ifType? o How would IP run over your ifType?
o Would there be another interface sublayer between your ifType o Would there be another interface sublayer between your ifType
and IP? and IP?
o Would your ifType be vendor-specific or proprietary? (If so, o Would your ifType be vendor-specific or proprietary? (If so,
the label MUST start with a string that shows that. For the label MUST start with a string that shows that. For
example, if your company's name or acronym is xxx, then the example, if your company's name or acronym is xxx, then the
ifType label would be something like xxxSomeIfTypeLabel.) ifType label would be something like xxxSomeIfTypeLabel.)
o (ADDED) Would your ifType require or allow vendor-specific o (NEW) Would your ifType require or allow vendor-specific
extensions? If so, would the vendor use their own ifType in extensions? If so, would the vendor use their own ifType in a
sub-layer below the requested ifType, or a sub-type of the sub-layer below the requested ifType, or a sub-type of the
ifType, or some other mechanism? ifType, or some other mechanism?
Reference, Internet-Draft, or Specification: A link to some document Reference, Internet-Draft, or Specification: A link to some document
is required. is required.
Additional information or comments: Optionally any additional Additional information or comments: Optionally any additional
comments for IANA or the Designated Expert. comments for IANA or the Designated Expert.
6.3.2. tunnelType
CURRENT: No form exists for tunnelType, and it is not enforced that
new requests have to use the ifType form.
PROPOSED: The following template describes the fields that MUST be
supplied in a registration request suitable for adding to the
tunnelType registry:
Label for IANA tunnelType requested: As explained in Section 7.1.1
of [RFC2578], a label for a named-number enumeration must consist
of one or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64
characters, and the initial character must be a lower-case letter.
(However, labels longer than 32 characters are not recommended.)
Note that hyphens are not allowed.
Name of IANA tunnelType requested: A short description (e.g., a
protocol name), suitable to appear in a comment in the registry.
Description of the proposed use of the IANA tunnelType: Requesters
MUST include answers, either directly or via a link to some
document with the answers, to the following questions in the
explanation of the proposed use of the IANA tunnelType:
o How would IP run over your tunnelType?
o Would there be another interface sublayer between your
tunnelType and IP?
o Would your tunnelType be vendor-specific or proprietary? (If
so, the label MUST start with a string that shows that. For
example, if your company's name or acronym is xxx, then the
tunnelType label would be something like xxxSomeIfTypeLabel.)
o Would your tunnelType require or allow vendor-specific
extensions? If so, would the vendor use their own tunnelType
in a sub-layer below the requested tunnelType, or some sort of
sub-type of the tunnelType, or some other mechanism?
Reference, Internet-Draft, or Specification: A link to some document
is required.
Additional information or comments: Optionally any additional
comments for IANA or the Designated Expert.
7. Submitting Requests 7. Submitting Requests
The registries say to use email, but a web form exists [IANAifType-MIB] currently says: "Requests for new values should be
made to IANA via email (iana&iana.org)." However, a web form exists
(https://www.iana.org/form/iftype), which is an apparent (https://www.iana.org/form/iftype), which is an apparent
contradiction, but submissions either way are accepted. contradiction, but submissions either way are accepted.
IANA is requested to make the following changes: IANA is requested to update the MIB module to instead say: "Interface
types must not be directly added to the IANAifType-MIB MIB module.
1. [IANAifType-MIB] currently says: "Requests for new values should They must instead be added to the "ifType definitions" registry at
be made to IANA via email (iana&iana.org)." This should be [ifType-registry]."
updated to instead say: "Requests for new values should be made
at https://www.iana.org/form/iftype or by email (iana&iana.org)."
2. [yang-if-type] currently says: "Requests for new values should be (Note that [yang-if-type] was previously updated with this language.)
made to IANA via email (iana&iana.org)." This should be updated
to instead say: "Requests for new values should be made at
https://www.iana.org/form/iftype or by email (iana&iana.org)."
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This entire document is about IANA considerations. This entire document is about IANA considerations.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol, Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol,
there are no security issues to be considered for this document there are no security issues to be considered for this document
itself. itself.
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 12, line 41
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[IANAifType-MIB] [IANAifType-MIB]
IANA, "IANAifType-MIB", February 2019, IANA, "IANAifType-MIB", February 2019,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib>.
[ifType] IANA, "ifType definitions", June 2019, [ifType-registry]
IANA, "ifType definitions", June 2019,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5>. numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5>.
[protocol-registries] [protocol-registries]
IANA, "Protocol Registries", June 2019, IANA, "Protocol Registries", June 2019,
<https://www.iana.org/protocols>. <https://www.iana.org/protocols>.
[RFC1234] Provan, D., "Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks",
RFC 1234, DOI 10.17487/RFC1234, June 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1234>.
[RFC1573] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "Evolution of the [RFC1573] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "Evolution of the
Interfaces Group of MIB-II", RFC 1573, Interfaces Group of MIB-II", RFC 1573,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1573, January 1994, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC1573, January 1994, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc1573>. editor.org/info/rfc1573>.
[RFC2667] Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", RFC 2667, [RFC2667] Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", RFC 2667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2667, August 1999, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2667, August 1999, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2667>. editor.org/info/rfc2667>.
[RFC3635] Flick, J., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Ethernet-like Interface Types", RFC 3635,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3635, September 2003, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3635>.
[RFC3637] Heard, C., Ed., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the [RFC3637] Heard, C., Ed., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer", RFC 3637, Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer", RFC 3637,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3637, September 2003, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3637, September 2003, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3637>. editor.org/info/rfc3637>.
[RFC4087] Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", RFC 4087, [RFC4087] Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", RFC 4087,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4087, June 2005, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4087, June 2005, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4087>. editor.org/info/rfc4087>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC5066] Beili, E., "Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) [RFC5066] Beili, E., "Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu)
Interfaces MIB", RFC 5066, DOI 10.17487/RFC5066, November Interfaces MIB", RFC 5066, DOI 10.17487/RFC5066, November
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5066>. 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5066>.
[RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module", [RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014, RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.
[transmission] [transmission-registry]
IANA, "transmission definitions", June 2019, IANA, "transmission definitions", June 2019,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-7>. numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-7>.
[tunnelType] [tunnelType-registry]
IANA, "Internet-standard MIB - mib- IANA, "Internet-standard MIB - mib-
2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType", June 2019, 2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType", June 2019,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6>. numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6>.
[yang-if-type] [yang-if-type]
IANA, "iana-if-type YANG Module", February 2019, IANA, "iana-if-type YANG Module", February 2019,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type>.
[yang-tunnel-type] [yang-tunnel-type]
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 167 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/