One document matched: draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-01.txt-9432.txt
Differences from 01.txt-00.txt
INTERNET DRAFT W. M. Townsley
draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-01.txt cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track August 2002
Expires: February 2003
L2TP IANA Considerations Update
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.
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 (L2TP).
Townsley Standards Track [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update August 2002
Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1.0 Introduction.......................................... 2
1.1 Terminology........................................... 2
2.0 IANA Considerations................................... 2
2.1 Control Message AVPs.................................. 3
2.2 Message Type AVP Values............................... 3
2.3 Result Code AVP Values................................ 3
2.4 Remaining Values...................................... 4
3.0 Normative References.................................. 4
4.0 Security Considerations............................... 4
5.0 Acknowledgements...................................... 4
6.0 Author's Address...................................... 4
1.0 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 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".
2.0 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
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
Townsley Standards Track [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update August 2002
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 Designated
Expert should consult relevant WGs as appropriate (e.g., the l2tpext
WG at the time of this writing).
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 manages the "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs" [IANAL2TP]
name space, 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 manages the "Message Type AVP (Attribute Type 0) Values"
[IANAL2TP] name space, 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
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.
Townsley Standards Track [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update August 2002
2.4 Remaining Values
All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned
specifically in this document remain as is.
3.0 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
4.0 Security Considerations
This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security
considerations.
5.0 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.
6.0 Author's Address
W. Mark Townsley
cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
mark@townsley.net
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
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
Townsley Standards Track [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT L2TP IANA Considerations Update August 2002
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 assigns.
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
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Townsley Standards Track [Page 5]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 01:41:05 |