General Area Dispatch C. Bormann Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI Updates: 7120, 8126 (if approved) M. Tiloca Intended status: Best Current Practice RISE AB Expires: 6 October 2024 4 April 2024 Registry policies “… with Expert Review” draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review-00 Abstract This document updates RFC 8126, adding registry policies that augment an existing policy that is based on a review body action with the additional requirement for a Designated Expert review. It also updates RFC 7120 with the necessary process to perform early allocations for registries with one of the augmented policies. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-gendispatch-with- expert-review/. Discussion of this document takes place on the gendispatch Working Group mailing list (mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/cabo/with-expert-review. 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 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 6 October 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Augmented Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. RFC Required With Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. IETF Review With Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Standards Action With Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. IESG Approval With Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Early Allocation for Augmented Registration Policies . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Usage in Existing Specifications . . . . . . . . . . 7 A.1. Related Policy Statements Potentially of Interest . . . . 7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction Section 4 of RFC 8126 [BCP26] defines a number of _well-known policies_ that can be referenced as registration policies from documents that set up IANA registries. Some of these policies involve a _Designated Expert_, who is intended to be aware of the fine points of what should or should not become a registration in that registry (Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]). Some other Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 policies involve a _review body_ that autonomously, not involving a _Designated Expert_, decide whether a registration should be accepted (Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]). In the past, this has occasionally led to friction where a Designated Expert was not consulted by the review body before approving the registration, missing some finer point (such as certain consistency requirements) that would have been pointed out by the expert. This document updates Section 4 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], adding registry policies that augment an existing policy that is based on a review body action with the additional requirement for a Designated Expert review. It also updates Sections 2 and 3 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] with the necessary process to perform early allocations for registries with one of the augmented policies. 2. Augmented Registration Policies For each of the well-known policies defined in Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], this document adds a parallel _augmented policy_ that also specifies involving a Designated Expert. 2.1. RFC Required With Expert Review This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. It is the responsibility of the stream approving body (see Section 5.1 of [RFC8729]) to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the RFC establishing the registration. 2.2. IETF Review With Expert Review This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.8 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. It is the responsibility of the IESG to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the RFC establishing the registration. 2.3. Standards Action With Expert Review This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.9 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], mirroring the requirements of Section 2.2 narrowed down to a certain type of RFC to be published. Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 2.4. IESG Approval With Expert Review This policy is identical to a combination of either Section 4.5 or Section 4.6 with Section 4.10 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], depending on the discretion of the IESG mentioned in the first paragraph of the latter section (which may be additionally informed by input from the Designated Expert). It is the responsibility of the IESG to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the registration. 3. Early Allocation for Augmented Registration Policies This document updates RFC 7120 [BCP100] to apply to the augmented policies defined above in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, and Section 2.3. Specifically: * Item (a) in Section 2 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] is extended to include the three augmented policies. * Item (2) in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] is amended as follows: | 2. The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early | allocations described in Section 2 are met, particularly | conditions (c) and (d). For the registration policies defined | in Section 2 of RFC-XXXX, the WG chairs first request review | and approval from the Designated Expert. // RFC editor: please replace XXXX by the RFC number of this document // and delete this note. 4. Security Considerations The security considerations of Section 5 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] and Section 12 of RFC 8126 [BCP26] apply. Augmenting registration policies by Designated Expert involvement may help reduce the potential of introducing security issues by adding inconsistent or insecure registrations to a registry. 5. IANA Considerations This document is all about procedures that need to be implemented by IANA, but by itself has no IANA actions. 6. References Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 6.1. Normative References [BCP100] Best Current Practice 100, . At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 2014, . [BCP26] Best Current Practice 26, . At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February 2020, . 6.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14] Davis, K. R., Peabody, B., and P. Leach, "Universally Unique IDentifiers (UUID)", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14, 6 November 2023, . [IANA.ace] IANA, "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)", . [IANA.cose] IANA, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", . [IANA.uuid] "*** BROKEN REFERENCE ***". [RFC4430] Sakane, S., Kamada, K., Thomas, M., and J. Vilhuber, "Kerberized Internet Negotiation of Keys (KINK)", RFC 4430, DOI 10.17487/RFC4430, March 2006, . Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, . [RFC5661] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010, . [RFC5797] Klensin, J. and A. Hoenes, "FTP Command and Extension Registry", RFC 5797, DOI 10.17487/RFC5797, March 2010, . [RFC6787] Burnett, D. and S. Shanmugham, "Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)", RFC 6787, DOI 10.17487/RFC6787, November 2012, . [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, . [RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881, DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020, . [RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, . [RFC9203] Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson, "The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework", RFC 9203, DOI 10.17487/RFC9203, August 2022, . [RFC9393] Birkholz, H., Fitzgerald-McKay, J., Schmidt, C., and D. Waltermire, "Concise Software Identification Tags", RFC 9393, DOI 10.17487/RFC9393, June 2023, . Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 [RFC9528] Selander, G., Preuß Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", RFC 9528, DOI 10.17487/RFC9528, March 2024, . Appendix A. Usage in Existing Specifications This appendix is informative. Examples for RFCs (and one RFC-to-be) and registries created from them that use "Standards Action with Expert Review", without further explanation of this usage, include: * [IANA.uuid], interpreting the approved [I-D.ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14] * [IANA.cose], interpreting Section 11 of [RFC9052] in conjunction with the older Section 16 of [RFC8152] * [IANA.ace], interpreting Section 9 of [RFC9203] * Section 6 of [RFC9393] * Section 10 of [RFC9528] A.1. Related Policy Statements Potentially of Interest In a number of places, [RFC8881] uses phrasing such as: | Hence, all assignments to the registry are made on a Standards | Action basis per Section 4.6 of [63], with Expert Review required. (here, [63] is a reference to RFC 8126 [BCP100]. RFC 8881's predecessor [RFC5661] used:) | All assignments to the registry are made on a Standards Action | basis per Section 4.1 of [55], with Expert Review required. (here, [55] is a reference to [RFC5226], the precursor of RFC 8126, which listed the well-known policies in its Section 4.1.) [RFC4430] (written before [RFC5226]) uses this phrasing: | * Assignment from the "RESERVED TO IANA" range needs Standards | Action, or non-standards-track RFCs with Expert Review. Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Registry policies “… with Expert Review” April 2024 Somewhat unrelated, [RFC6787] uses the redundant phrase "Specification Required with Expert Review". Section 5 of [RFC5797] uses related phrasing for a more complicated requirement. Acknowledgments The creation of this document was prompted by an IESG ballot comment from John Scudder, which led to the observation that the now somewhat common practice of augmenting review-body-based registry policies by Expert Review had not been documented sufficiently. Authors' Addresses Carsten Bormann Universität Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 D-28359 Bremen Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Email: cabo@tzi.org Marco Tiloca RISE AB Isafjordsgatan 22 SE-16440 Stockholm Kista Sweden Email: marco.tiloca@ri.se Bormann & Tiloca Expires 6 October 2024 [Page 8]