Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
draft-iana-rfc2754-to-historic-01

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 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 November 21, 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 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.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Details
3.  Terminology
4.  IANA Considerations
5.  Security Considerations
6.  Acknowledgments
7.  Informative References
§  Author's Address

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] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.) 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] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.), recommends that it be moved to historic status, and directs IANA to not move forward with the IANA Actions in that RFC.

2.  Details

RFC 2754 [RFC2754] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.) 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 RFCs 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] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.) as historic and to direct the IANA not to pursue or implement the IANA requests in that document.

3.  Terminology

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] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.)

5.  Security Considerations

The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took place in the public Internet. Moving RFC 2754 [RFC2754] (Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, “RPS IANA Issues,” January 2000.) to historic status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet.

6.  Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Alfred Hines, Russ Housley, Leo Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Michelle Cotton and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments.

7. Informative References

Author's Address