Browse Prior Art Database

Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points (RFC7120)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000234655D
Original Publication Date: 2014-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2014-Jan-25
Document File: 18 page(s) / 18K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

M. Cotton: AUTHOR

Abstract

In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate. Many of these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA). Several IETF policies for IANA allocation of protocol parameters are described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Some of them, such as "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review", do not require a formal IETF action before the IANA performs allocation. However, in situations where code points are a scarce resource and/or the IETF community has consensus to retain tight control of the registry content, policies such as "IETF Review" (formerly "IETF Consensus"), or "Standards Action" have been used. Such allocation policies present a problem in situations where implementation and/or deployment experience are desired or required before the document becomes an RFC.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 16% of the total text.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         M. Cotton Request for Comments: 7120                                         ICANN BCP: 100                                                    January 2014 Obsoletes: 4020 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721

           Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points

Abstract

   This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points    by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC    Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply.  This    process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point    allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation    and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC, which would    normally trigger code point allocation.  The procedures in this    document are intended to apply only to IETF Stream documents.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4020.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force    (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has    received public review and has been approved for publication by the    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on    BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at    http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120.

Cotton                    Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]
 RFC 7120                  Early IANA Allocation             January 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3    2.  Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4    3.  Process for Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4      3.1.  Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5      3.2.  Follow-Up...