Subject: proposed draft IANA Considerations

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 20:07:25 -0600 (MDT)

Enclosed is a proposed IANA Considerations ID for PPP numbers.
What say you?  Should I send it to the RFC Editor?  Does it need
large or small changes?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

P.S. It's sad how much boilerplate required by the modern IETF, but not
   quite as sad as the need for this procedural change.

...........................................................................

Network Working Group                                           Schryver
Internet Draft                                         Rhyolite Software
                                                                May 2003

                      IANA Considerations for PPP

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 15, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

1. Introduction

   The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions (pppext)
   working group includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's
   most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against
   further enhancements of questionable value."  In support of that
   charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers
   will no longer be "first come first served."

2. Terminology

Schryver                                                        [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       IP IANA Considerations for PPP             May 2003

   The terms "name space", "assigned value", and "registration" are used
   here with the meanings defined in BCP 26.  The policies "First Come
   First Served" and "IETF Consensus" used here also have the meanings
   defined in BCP 26.

3. IANA Considerations

   The Point-to-Point protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with
   a large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions.
   The main protocol as well as its extensions involve many name spaces
   in which values must be assigned.
   Http://www.iana.org/assignments/ppp-numbers contains a list of the
   address spaces and their current assignments.

   Historically, initial values in new name spaces have often been
   chosen in the RFCs creating the name spaces.  The IANA made
   subsequent assignments with a "First Come First Served" policy.  This
   memo changes that policy for some PPP address spaces.

   Most of the PPP names spaces are quiescent, but some continue to
   attract proposed extensions.  Extensions of PPP have been defined in
   RFCs that are "Informational" and so are not subject to review.
   These extensions usually require values assigned in one or more of
   the PPP name spaces.  Making these allocations require "IETF
   Consensus," usually through the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions
   (pppext) working group, will ensure that proposals are reviewed.

   It is sufficient to require IETF Consensus for assigning new values
   in the following address spaces:

                DLL PROTOCOL NUMBERS
                LCP AND IPCP CODES
                LCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                CCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                AUTHENTICATION ALGORITHMS
                LCP FCS-ALTERNATIVES
                MULTILINK ENDPOINT DISCRIMINATOR CLASS
                LCP CALLBACK OPERATION FIELDS
                BRIDGING CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                BRIDGING MAC TYPES
                BRIDGING SPANNING TREE
                EAP REQUEST/RESPONSE TYPES
                IPCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                IPV6CP CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
                IP-Compression-Protocol Types

Schryver                                                        [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       IP IANA Considerations for PPP             May 2003

4. Security Considerations

      This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.

Normative References

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

Author's Address

   Vernon Schryver
   Rhyolite Software
   2482 Lee Hill Drive
   Boulder, Colorado 80302

   EMail: [email-masked]

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Schryver                                                        [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       IP IANA Considerations for PPP             May 2003

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

Schryver                                                        [Page 4]

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:37:37 -0700 (PDT)

One  comment -- allocation policy for EAP Request/Response types is being
handled in RFC 2284bis (and is also being upgraded from FCFS).  So you
don't need to bother with that one.