Network Working Group M. McFadden
Internet-Draft ICANN
Obsoletes: 2754 (if approved) January 19, 2010
Intended status: Informational
Expires: July 23, 2010
Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
draft-iana-rfc2754-to-historic-00
Abstract
RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it
was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally
sign them. The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in
software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System.
In practice, this was never done on the public Internet. This
document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to historic status.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 July 23, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
McFadden Expires July 23, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 2754 to Historic Status January 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
McFadden Expires July 23, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 2754 to Historic Status January 2010
1. Introduction
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols
which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the
IANA create a repository of Routing Policy System Language (RPSL)
objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the initial
objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
as well. In practice, this was never done in the public Internet.
During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration activities
in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was identified.
This document obsoletes RFC 2754 [RFC2754], recommends that it be
moved to historic status, and directs IANA to not move forward with
the IANA in that RFC.
The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval",
"IETF Review", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to refer
to the processes described in [RFC5226].
2. Details
RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the IANA create a repository of RPSL
objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the initial
objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
as well.
During a review of RFC's in 2009 it became apparent that the IANA
actions requested in RFC 2754 were never done. In the intervening
time, another technology appears to be taking the role once
envisioned for Distributed RPSL. Implementation of the IANA actions
in RFC 2754 would now require significant implementation complexity.
In the face of alternative technology, and given that the requested
actions have not been implemented in the public Internet, it is
proposed to reclassify RFC 2754 [RFC2754] as historic and to direct
the IANA not to pursue or implement the IANA requests in that
document.
3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
McFadden Expires July 23, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 2754 to Historic Status January 2010
[RFC2119].
The word "allocation" designates a block of addresses managed by a
registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations. The
word "assignment" designates a block of addresses, or a single
address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or
set of networks.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the IANA actions
requested in RFC 2754 [RFC2754]
5. Security Considerations
The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took
place in the public Internet. Moving RFC 2754 [RFC2754] to historic
status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet.
6. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Russ Housley, Leo Vegoda, Terry
Manderson, Michelle Cotton and David Conrad for their constructive
feedback and comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2754] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, "RPS
IANA Issues", RFC 2754, January 2000.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA] IANA, "IANA Protocol Registries", .
[IANA-protocols]
IANA, "IANA Protocol Registries",
.
[RFC1786] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Jouanigot, J.,
McFadden Expires July 23, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 2754 to Historic Status January 2010
Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., and J. Yu, "Representation
of IP Routing Policies in a Routing Registry (ripe-81++)",
RFC 1786, March 1995.
[RFC2622] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
"Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
June 1999.
[RFC2650] Meyer, D., Schmitz, J., Orange, C., Prior, M., and C.
Alaettinoglu, "Using RPSL in Practice", RFC 2650,
August 1999.
[RFC2725] Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D., and S.
Murphy, "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725,
December 1999.
[RFC2726] Zsako, J., "PGP Authentication for RIPE Database Updates",
RFC 2726, December 1999.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Author's Address
Mark McFadden
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey 90292
United States
Phone: +1-608-628-2674
Email: mark.mcfadden@icann.org
URI: http://www.iana.org
McFadden Expires July 23, 2010 [Page 5]