]> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

PTI/ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Los Angeles 90094 United States of America amanda.baber@iana.org

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

PTI/ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Los Angeles 90094 United States of America sabrina.tanamal@iana.org

early allocation policy protocol This document describes the requirements for securing IANA code point assignments for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts and specifications being drafted by other standards-related organizations. This document obsoletes RFC 7120.

Introduction Protocol specifications in RFCs often require code point assignments for messages, objects, and other protocol elements to ensure interoperable implementations. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) manages these allocations in accordance with policies described in . When code points are scarce or the IETF wishes to maintain strict control over assignments, registries commonly use policies such as "IETF Review" or "Standards Action." These policies can create challenges when implementers need deployment or interoperability experience before documents can be finalized and approved for publication. Because IANA generally waits for the IESG to approve an Internet-Draft before allocating values for it, authors sometimes use unassigned values for pre-publication testing. However, requesting or suggesting a value in a document does not place the value on hold. If the assumed value is no longer available when the document is ready for allocation, early implementations that rely on that value will be incompatible with implementations that follow the RFC, which will use the IANA-allocated value. This outcome undermines the primary goal of standards: interoperable implementations. This memo defines an early code point allocation process that enables pre-RFC testing. Using this process, eligible IETF Stream documents may receive time-limited allocations prior to IESG approval. When appropriate, these early allocations can be renewed, if necessary, and carried through to the final published specification. This memo also defines an early allocation process for standards-related organizations that need assignments from "Specification Required" registries before they can meet the policy's publication requirements (, Section 4.6).

Changes Since RFC 7120 This is the third edition of the document that describes the policy for early allocations. This edition, which obsoletes , makes two major changes: 1) it creates an early allocation procedure for standards-related organizations that need "Specification Required" allocations before a specification can be published, and 2) it extends the term of registration for all early allocations from one year to two. It also creates a registry of standards-related organizations recognized by the IESG; clarifies aspects of the time-limited allocation renewal process; and notes that where registries require both document publication and expert approval for permanent registration, IANA requests expert approval for early allocation as well.

Conditions for Early Allocation The term "early allocation" is typically used to refer to the process that allows for temporary but renewable assignments from registries that would ordinarily require an IESG-approved Internet-Draft, as described in . However, there are two other forms of early allocation: permanent allocations from registries that have limited or, more often, no publication requirements (), and a new process available to standards-related organizations that need allocations from IANA before publication (). If time-limited early allocation is not appropriate for a "Specification Required" registry, or for any registry that requires RFC publication, IANA should be instructed to attach a note that says, "The temporary early allocation policy described by [this RFC] does not apply to this registry." If only a certain range is affected, "this registry" should be replaced with "this registry's <registration procedure> range."

Permanent Early Allocation (First Come First Served, Expert Review, and Some Specification Required Registries) If the desired code points come from a "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review" space, authors can request permanent registration from IANA at any time, regardless of document origin or status. Some "Specification Required" registries also make permanent registration available to Internet-Drafts, provided a designated expert approves the request. However, registry-specific eligibility criteria may apply, and IESG-designated experts may choose to postpone their decision until the document advances. Authors of documents adopted by IETF working groups should also confirm that the group supports early registration. Temporary registration in a "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review" registry is available only when the registry has its own bespoke early allocation procedure, as with the IS-IS process defined in , Section 4.

Time-Limited Early Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts The following conditions must hold before IANA can process a request for early allocation of code points that would otherwise require an Internet-Draft approved for publication by the IESG:

1. The code points must come from a space that requires RFC publication. Most registries of this type use the "RFC Required," "IETF Review," and/or "Standards Action" registration procedures defined by , but some use combined or custom procedures. Additionally, this process can be applied to requests for early assignment from a "Specification Required" registry under the following conditions:
   • The registry does not accept Internet-Drafts for permanent registration
   • If approved by the IESG, the specification will be published as an IETF Stream RFC
   • IANA can obtain expert approval, as described in
2. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described in an IETF Stream Internet-Draft.
3. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
4. The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) must determine that there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC) implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the field.

Process for Early Allocation There are three processes associated with early allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts: making the request for code points, following up on the request, and revoking an early allocation. The processes described below assume that the document in question is the product of an IETF Working Group (WG). If this is not the case, replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding AD."

Request The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code points for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts is described below:

1. The authors (or editors) of the document submit a request for early allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code points require early allocation and to which document they should be assigned.
2. The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early allocations described in are met, particularly conditions (c) and (d).
3. The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that early allocation is appropriate for the given document.
4. If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval from the AD(s). The AD(s) may apply judgment to the request, especially if there is a risk of registry depletion.
5. If the ADs approve step 4), the WG chairs contact IANA to request an early allocation.
6. If the allocation comes from a "Specification Required" registry, or another registry that requires both RFC publication and review by an IESG-designated expert, IANA asks the expert(s) to approve the request.
7. IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking the allocation as temporary, valid for a period of two years from the date of allocation. The expiration date is also recorded in the registry and made visible to the public until the draft is submitted to the IESG for consideration.

Note that documents should not associate new code points with specific numeric values until IANA has allocated those values.

Follow-Up It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the specifications of the code points for which early allocation was requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible. If at some point changes that are not backward compatible are nonetheless required, a decision needs to be made as to whether previously allocated code points must be deprecated (see for more information on code point deprecation). The considerations include aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of the older implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision between older and newer implementations in the field. If the document progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes code point allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and the WG chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations and of the code point values allocated in the IANA Considerations section of the RFC-to-be. Allocation is then just a matter of removing the "temporary" indicator from the registration.

Expiry As described in , each temporary assignment is recorded in the registry with the date of expiry of the assignment. If an early allocation will expire before the IESG approves the document for publication, IANA will contact the WG chairs and AD to ask whether they wish to renew the code points for an additional two-year period. After the first extension, any further renewal requests must also be approved by the IESG. The renewal request to the IESG must include the reason(s) another renewal is necessary and the WG's plans for the specification. If an extension is not approved, IANA will ask the WG chairs whether they recommend deprecating the code point; completely de-allocating it, making it available for assignment again; or leaving the allocation in place, but with its "temporary" marker, and an expiration date indicating that it is no longer valid. Factors influencing this decision will include whether there may be implementations using the previous temporary allocation and the availability of other unallocated code points in the registry. Implementers and deployers need to be aware that deprecation and de-allocation could take place at any time after expiry. An expired early allocation is therefore best considered as deprecated. Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG, and at the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not expired), these allocations must not be considered to have expired while the document is under IESG consideration.

Time-Limited Early Allocation for Standards-Related Organizations If a standards-related organization needs one or more code points from a "Specification Required" registry before the specification can be published, and the IESG-designated expert is satisfied that the document will be published, the expert can recommend a renewable two-year early allocation. The registry will indicate that the allocation is temporary and list its expiration date. To qualify for early allocation, the organization must be listed in the "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" registry described in . If the expert approves the allocation, but the organization has not yet been registered, IANA will ask the IESG for permission to add the organization to the registry. The organization is responsible for notifying IANA that the document has been published. In the absence of such notification, IANA will ask the organization about the status of the document before the allocation expires. If publication is still pending, IANA will ask the organization whether they wish to renew the allocation or allow it to expire. If the organization chooses to renew, IANA will ask the expert to approve the renewal. If the expert cannot approve renewal, or if the organization chooses to allow the registration to expire, the expert will determine whether the allocation should be marked as "deprecated," marked as "obsoleted," left in place with the original expiration date, or deleted (in which case any registered value would be returned to the pool of unassigned values).

IANA Considerations IANA will continue to register approved early allocations as described in this document, requesting IESG-designated expert approval when the registry requires it; track and report expiring early allocations; and initiate the early allocation renewal process. IANA will also ask the IESG to approve additions to the "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" registry as needed.

IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organization Registry IANA will make the following changes to the registry at , originally created as a list of organizations approved by the IESG for standards-tree media type registration:

• Change the name of the registry and registry group from "Standards-related organizations that have registered Media Types in the Standards Tree" to "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations"
• List this document as an additional reference for the registry, leaving the reference to in place

Existing registrations will be grandfathered. When the IESG formally recognizes an organization as a standards-related organization, whether to confirm eligibility for standards-tree media type registration, the early allocation procedure described in , or any future procedure requiring such recognition, IANA will add the organization to the repurposed registry. Registered organizations will be eligible for any procedure that requires IESG recognition of this type. If necessary, however, the registry could eventually be restructured to indicate that an organization's eligibility is restricted to specific registries or procedures.

Security Considerations There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document could be used as an end-run around the IETF process to achieve code point allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for a protocol extension for a particular company or for another Standards Development Organization even though it might be predicted that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is documented. The requirement for AD consent is an important safeguard, and ADs with any concerns are strongly recommended to escalate the issue for IESG-wide discussion. If a procedure defined by this document introduces additional security or other concerns, IANA may request that the IESG suspend that procedure at any time.

References Normative References IANA Informative References

Acknowledgments Thank you to Kireeti Kompella, Alex Zinin, and Michelle Cotton for authoring RFC 4020 and RFC 7120. Thanks to Kim Davies for his help in revising this edition.