


Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                            August 7, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 8, 2013


            Custodial Review Criteria for Designated Experts
                 draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01

Abstract

   This document specifies a set of review criteria for IANA registry
   Designated Experts.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.






Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Registry Custodians               August 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  The Custodian's Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Specifying Custodial Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6







































Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Registry Custodians               August 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a set of review criteria for IANA registry
   Designated Experts [RFC5226].

   They are designed to be used when a registry is likely to have a
   large number of registrations from outside the IETF community,
   because they give the Designated Expert(s) limited powers to maintain
   the registry's contents, while still having a low bar to entry.

   Colloquially, such a Designated Expert is known as a "Custodian."

   The goal of a registry using them is to reflect deployment with the
   registry as closely as possible; in other words, if a protocol
   element is in use on the Internet, it ought to appear in the
   registry.

   It is a non-goal to use the registry as a measure of quality (e.g.,
   allowing only "good" registrations, imposing architectural
   constraints onto registrations).

   As such, these review criteria are not appropriate for all
   registries.

   A registry defined as Expert Review or Specification Required can
   define the Expert's role as that of a Custodian by referencing this
   document.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   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 [RFC2119].


2.  The Custodian's Role

   The Custodian's primary duty is to maintain the registry's contents
   by assisting new registrations, updating existing entries, and making
   new registrations when a protocol element is widely deployed but
   unregistered.

   As such, they have considerable power, in that they can make material
   changes to the registry content without oversight, beyond that
   offered by the community at large.

   However, in practice this power is quite limited.  The Custodian is
   not charged with acting as a gatekeeper, nor imposing requirements on



Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Registry Custodians               August 2012


   new registrations.  Rather, they are responsible for assuring that
   the registry is kept up-to-date, reflecting the reality of
   deployment.

   In particular, a Custodian:

   o  MAY make suggestions to new registrations (e.g., "have you
      considered...?")
   o  MUST NOT act as a "gatekeeper" to the registry (e.g., refusing
      registrations based upon perceived or actual architectural or
      aesthetic issues)
   o  MUST respect additional requirements placed upon registrations by
      the registry definition when making decisions
   o  SHOULD consult with the community (using a nominated mailing list)
      when there are disputes or questions about pending or existing
      registrations
   o  MAY proactively document values in common use (usually, reflected
      in the registration status, e.g., "provisional")
   o  MAY update contact details and specification references, in
      consultation with the registrants
   o  MAY update change control for a registration, with appropriate
      consent or community consensus, as appropriate
   o  MAY annotate registrations (e.g., with implementation notes,
      additional context)
   o  MAY update the status of a registration (e.g., to "deprecated",
      "obsoleted") as appropriate
   o  SHOULD announce significant changes to the mailing list, for
      community review

   Additionally, for Specification Required registries, a Custodian:

   o  MAY approve registrations when it is, in their judgement, apparent
      that a specification will be published
   o  MAY consider specifications other than standards as meeting
      "Specification Required".  References are encouraged to be
      reasonably stable, but references stability on its own SHOULD NOT
      be an impediment to registration, because the Custodian(s) MAY
      update it as necessary.

   Members of the community who disagree with a Custodian's actions MAY
   appeal to the Area Director(s) identified by the registry.  However,
   such appeals will be judged upon the criteria above, along with any
   criteria specific to the registry and/or its chosen registration
   policy.







Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Registry Custodians               August 2012


3.  Specifying Custodial Registries

   Registries established with a [RFC5226] Expert Review or
   Specification Required policy can refer to this specification if they
   wish to nominate the guidelines described here as review criteria for
   Designated Expert(s).

   Registries using the custodial process:

   o  SHOULD define a 'status' (or functionally similar) field that
      indicates registration disposition, and SHOULD enumerate possible
      values.
   o  SHOULD nominate a mailing list for discussion of registrations;
      usually, this will be a pre-existing list (rather than a dedicated
      one).
   o  MUST nominate the area whose Area Directors are responsible for
      appointing Custodians and handling appeals.
   o  SHOULD identify the URL of the registry in their specification.
   o  SHOULD give IANA as the point of contact for new registrations.
   o  MAY place additional requirements upon registrations (e.g.,
      syntactic constraints, clear guidelines for appropriate use)


4.  IANA Considerations

   For custodial registries, IANA:

   o  MUST send requests for registrations to the Custodian
   o  SHOULD respond to requests from the Custodian promptly
   o  SHOULD notify the responsible Area Directors if the Custodian is
      unresponsive
   o  MUST provide an easily editable Web page about the registry to the
      Custodian (e.g., a "wiki"), and link to it from the registry page
   o  MUST provide the capacity for the Custodian to annotate individual
      registry entries (e.g., a "wiki" page for each entry)


5.  Security Considerations

   A Custodian has a considerable amount of leeway regarding the
   contents of the registry, because they can effect a change in it
   merely by asking IANA to do so.  Therefore, registries that contain
   security-sensitive information are advised to consider whether this
   could form the basis of an attack; e.g., if an implementation
   retrieves and utilises the contents of the registry automatically.


6.  References



Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Registry Custodians               August 2012


6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

6.2.  Informative References

   [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 Nottingham

   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   http://www.mnot.net/

































Nottingham              Expires February 8, 2013                [Page 6]

