| |
| BCP 3 | Variance for The PPP Compression Control Protocol and The PPP Encryption Control Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | F. Kastenholz. |
| Date: | February 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 1915 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 4 | An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA |
| |
| Authors: | P. Nesser II. |
| Date: | February 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 1917 |
|
This document is an appeal to the Internet community to return unused address space, i.e. any block of consecutive IP prefixes, to theInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) or any of the delegated registries, for reapportionment. Similarly an appeal is issued to providers to return unused prefixes which fall outside their customary address blocks to the IANA for reapportionment. |
|
| |
| BCP 5 | Address Allocation for Private Internets |
| |
| Authors: | Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear. |
| Date: | February 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1627, RFC 1597 |
| Also: | RFC 1918 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 6 | Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) |
| |
| Authors: | J. Hawkinson, T. Bates. |
| Date: | March 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 1930 |
|
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize anAutonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. ASes are the unit of routing policy in the modern world of exterior routing, and are specifically applicable to protocols like EGP (Exterior GatewayProtocol, now at historical status; see [EGP]), BGP (Border GatewayProtocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see[BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which theInternet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]).It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, orRouting Domain Identifier. |
|
| |
| BCP 7 | Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing |
| |
| Authors: | Y. Rekhter, T. Li. |
| Date: | October 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2008 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 8 | IRTF Research Group Guidelines and Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | A. Weinrib, J. Postel. |
| Date: | October 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2014 |
|
The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) has responsibility for organizing groups to investigate research topics related to theInternet protocols, applications, and technology. IRTF activities are organized into Research Groups. This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IRTFResearch Groups. It describes the relationship between IRTF participants, Research Groups, the Internet Research Steering Group(IRSG) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). The basic duties of IRTF participants, including the IRTF Chair, Research Group Chairs and IRSG members are defined. |
|
| |
| BCP 9 | The Internet Standards Process |
| |
|
|
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and copyright issues associated with the standards process. |
|
| |
| BCP 10 | Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees |
| |
|
|
The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self- consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication. |
|
| |
| BCP 11 | The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process |
| |
|
|
This document describes the individuals and organizations involved in the IETF. This includes descriptions of the IESG, the IETF WorkingGroups and the relationship between the IETF and the InternetSociety. |
|
| |
| BCP 12 | Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | K. Hubbard, M. Kosters, D. Conrad, D. Karrenberg, J. Postel. |
| Date: | November 1996 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1466 |
| Also: | RFC 2050 |
|
This document describes the registry system for the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and registry operations.Particularly this document describes the rules and guidelines governing the distribution of this address space.
This document describes the IP assignment policies currently used by the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by theIANA. The guidelines and these policies are subject to revision at the direction of the IANA. The registry working group (IRE WG) will be discussing these issues and may provide advice to the IANA about possible revisions.
This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines and procedures updated and modified in the light of experience.
This document does not describe private Internet address space and multicast address space. It also does not describe regional and local refinements of the global rules and guidelines.
This document can be considered the base set of operational guidelines in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be imposed by a particular registry as appropriate. |
|
| |
| BCP 13 | Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures |
| |
|
|
STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet MailExtensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for
(1) textual message bodies in character sets other thanUS-ASCII,
(2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies,
(3) multi-part message bodies, and
(4) textual header information in character sets other thanUS-ASCII.
These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822.
This fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration procedures for the following MIME facilities:
(1) media types,
(2) external body access types,
(3) content-transfer-encodings.
Registration of character sets for use in MIME is covered elsewhere and is no longer addressed by this document.
These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521 and 1522, which themselves were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342. An appendix in RFC 2049 describes differences and changes from previous versions. |
|
| |
| BCP 14 | Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels |
| |
|
|
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: |
|
| |
| BCP 15 | Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand, P. Jurg. |
| Date: | September 1997 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2148 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 16 | Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers |
| |
| Authors: | R. Elz, R. Bush, S. Bradner, M. Patton. |
| Date: | July 1997 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2182 |
|
The Domain Name System requires that multiple servers exist for every delegated domain (zone). This document discusses the selection of secondary servers for DNS zones. Both the physical and topological location of each server are material considerations when selecting secondary servers. The number of servers appropriate for a zone is also discussed, and some general secondary server maintenance issues considered. |
|
| |
| BCP 17 | Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services |
| |
| Authors: | M. Hamilton, R. Wright. |
| Date: | October 1997 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2219 |
|
It has become a common practice to use symbolic names (usuallyCNAMEs) in the Domain Name Service (DNS - [RFC-1034, RFC-1035]) to refer to network services such as anonymous FTP [RFC-959] servers,Gopher [RFC-1436] servers, and most notably World-Wide Web HTTP[RFC-1945] servers. This is desirable for a number of reasons. It provides a way of moving services from one machine to another transparently, and a mechanism by which people or agents may programmatically discover that an organization runs, say, a World-Wide Web server.
Although this approach has been almost universally adopted, there is no standards document or similar specification for these commonly used names. This document seeks to rectify this situation by gathering together the extant 'folklore' on naming conventions, and proposes a mechanism for accommodating new protocols.
It is important to note that these naming conventions do not provide a complete long term solution to the problem of finding a particular network service for a site. There are efforts in other IETF working groups to address the long term solution to this problem, such as theServer Location Resource Records (DNS SRV) [RFC-2052] work. |
|
| |
| BCP 18 | IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand. |
| Date: | January 1998 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2277 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 19 | IANA Charset Registration Procedures |
| |
|
|
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) (RFC-2045, RFC-2046,RFC-2047, RFC-2184) and various other Internet protocols are capable of using many different charsets. This in turn means that the ability to label different charsets is essential.
Note: The charset registration procedure exists solely to associate a specific name or names with a given charset and to give an indication of whether or not a given charset can be used in MIME text objects.In particular, the general applicability and appropriateness of a given registered charset to a particular application is a protocol issue, not a registration issue, and is not dealt with by this registration procedure. |
|
| |
| BCP 20 | Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation |
| |
| Authors: | H. Eidnes, G. de Groot, P. Vixie. |
| Date: | March 1998 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2317 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 21 | Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response |
| |
| Authors: | N. Brownlee, E. Guttman. |
| Date: | June 1998 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2350 |
|
The purpose of this document is to express the general Internet community's expectations of Computer Security Incident Response Teams(CSIRTs). It is not possible to define a set of requirements that would be appropriate for all teams, but it is possible and helpful to list and describe the general set of topics and issues which are of concern and interest to constituent communities.
CSIRT constituents have a legitimate need and right to fully understand the policies and procedures of 'their' Computer SecurityIncident Response Team. One way to support this understanding is to supply detailed information which users may consider, in the form of a formal template completed by the CSIRT. An outline of such a template and a filled in example are provided. |
|
| |
| BCP 22 | Guide for Internet Standards Writers |
| |
|
|
This document is a guide for Internet standard writers. It defines those characteristics that make standards coherent, unambiguous, and easy to interpret. In addition, it singles out usage believed to have led to unclear specifications, resulting in non-interoperable interpretations in the past. These guidelines are to be used withRFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors". |
|
| |
| BCP 23 | Administratively Scoped IP Multicast |
| |
|
| |
| BCP 24 | RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines |
| |
|
|
This memo presents specific implementation guidelines for runningRSVP over ATM switched virtual circuits (SVCs). The general problem is discussed in [6]. Implementation requirements are discussed in[2]. Integrated Services to ATM service mappings are covered in [3].The full set of documents present the background and information needed to implement Integrated Services and RSVP over ATM. |
|
| |
| BCP 25 | IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures |
| |
|
|
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has responsibility for developing and reviewing specifications intended as InternetStandards. IETF activities are organized into working groups (WGs).This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. It also describes the formal relationship between IETF participants WG and the InternetEngineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of IETF participants, including WG Chairs, WG participants, and IETF AreaDirectors. |
|
| |
| BCP 26 | Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs |
| |
|
|
Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA).
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on the IANA. |
|
| |
| BCP 27 | Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track |
| |
| Authors: | M. O'Dell, H. Alvestrand, B. Wijnen, S. Bradner. |
| Date: | October 1998 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2438 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 28 | Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | M. Allman, D. Glover, L. Sanchez. |
| Date: | January 1999 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2488 |
|
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) provides reliable delivery of data across any network path, including network paths containing satellite channels. While TCP works over satellite channels there are several IETF standardized mechanisms that enable TCP to more effectively utilize the available capacity of the network path. This document outlines some of these TCP mitigations. At this time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF standards). |
|
| |
| BCP 29 | Procedure for Defining New DHCP Options |
| |
|
|
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network.Configuration parameters and other control information are carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field of the DHCP message. The data items themselves are also called "options."
New DHCP options may be defined after the publication of the DHCP specification to accommodate requirements for conveyance of new configuration parameters. This document describes the procedure for defining new DHCP options. |
|
| |
| BCP 30 | Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs |
| |
|
|
This memo gives a number of implementation recommendations for SMTP,[1], MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents, e.g. sendmail, [8]) to make them more capable of reducing the impact of spam(*).
The intent is that these recommendations will help clean up the spam situation, if applied on enough SMTP MTAs on the Internet, and that they should be used as guidelines for the various MTA vendors. We are fully aware that this is not the final solution, but if these recommendations were included, and used, on all Internet SMTP MTAs, things would improve considerably and give time to design a more long term solution. The Future Work section suggests some ideas that may be part of such a long term solution. It might, though, very well be the case that the ultimate solution is social, political, or legal, rather than technical in nature.
The implementor should be aware of the increased risk of denial of service attacks that several of the proposed methods might lead to.For example, increased number of queries to DNS servers and increased size of logfiles might both lead to overloaded systems and system crashes during an attack.
A brief summary of this memo is: o Stop unauthorized mail relaying. o Spammers then have to operate in the open; deal with them. o Design a mail system that can handle spam. |
|
| |
| BCP 31 | Media Feature Tag Registration Procedure |
| |
| Authors: | K. Holtman, A. Mutz, T. Hardie. |
| Date: | March 1999 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2506 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 32 | Reserved Top Level DNS Names |
| |
| Authors: | D. Eastlake 3rd, A. Panitz. |
| Date: | June 1999 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2606 |
|
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented. |
|
| |
| BCP 33 | URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, D. van Gulik, R. Iannella, P. Falstrom. |
| Date: | June 1999 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3406 |
| Also: | RFC 2611 |
|
The URN WG has defined a syntax for Uniform Resource Names (URNs)[RFC2141], as well as some proposed mechanisms for their resolution and use in Internet applications ([RFC2168, RFC2169]). The whole rests on the concept of individual "namespaces" within the URN structure. Apart from proof-of-concept namespaces, the use of existing identifiers in URNs has been discussed ([RFC2288]), and this document lays out general definitions of and mechanisms for establishing URN "namespaces". |
|
| |
| BCP 34 | Changing the Default for Directed Broadcasts in Routers |
| |
|
| |
| BCP 35 | Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes |
| |
|
|
This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are registered. |
|
| |
| BCP 36 | Guidelines for Writers of RTP Payload Format Specifications |
| |
| Authors: | M. Handley, C. Perkins. |
| Date: | December 1999 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2736 |
|
This document provides general guidelines aimed at assisting the authors of RTP Payload Format specifications in deciding on good formats. These guidelines attempt to capture some of the experience gained with RTP as it evolved during its development. |
|
| |
| BCP 37 | IANA Allocation Guidelines |
| |
|
|
This memo provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for fields in the IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP and TCP protocol headers. |
|
| |
| BCP 38 | Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing |
| |
|
|
Recent occurrences of various Denial of Service (DoS) attacks which have employed forged source addresses have proven to be a troublesome issue for Internet Service Providers and the Internet community overall. This paper discusses a simple, effective, and straightforward method for using ingress traffic filtering to prohibit DoS attacks which use forged IP addresses to be propagated from 'behind' an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) aggregation point. |
|
| |
| BCP 39 | Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) |
| |
| Authors: | Internet Architecture Board, B. Carpenter, Ed.. |
| Date: | May 2000 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1601 |
| Also: | RFC 2850 |
|
This memo documents the composition, selection, roles, and organization of the Internet Architecture Board. It replaces RFC1601. |
|
| |
| BCP 40 | Root Name Server Operational Requirements |
| |
| Authors: | R. Bush, D. Karrenberg, M. Kosters, R. Plzak. |
| Date: | June 2000 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2010 |
| Also: | RFC 2870 |
|
As the internet becomes increasingly critical to the world's social and economic infrastructure, attention has rightly focused on the correct, safe, reliable, and secure operation of the internet infrastructure itself. The root domain name servers are seen as a crucial part of that technical infrastructure. The primary focus of this document is to provide guidelines for operation of the root name servers. Other major zone server operators (gTLDs, ccTLDs, major zones) may also find it useful. These guidelines are intended to meet the perceived societal needs without overly prescribing technical details. |
|
| |
| BCP 41 | Congestion Control Principles |
| |
|
|
The goal of this document is to explain the need for congestion control in the Internet, and to discuss what constitutes correct congestion control. One specific goal is to illustrate the dangers of neglecting to apply proper congestion control. A second goal is to discuss the role of the IETF in standardizing new congestion control protocols. |
|
| |
| BCP 42 | Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations |
| |
|
|
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are given for the allocation of Domain Name System(DNS) classes, Resource Record (RR) types, operation codes, error codes, etc. |
|
| |
| BCP 43 | Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP Options and Message Types |
| |
|
|
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TransmissionControl Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network. Configuration parameters and other control information are carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field of the DHCP message.The data items themselves are also called "options".
DHCP protocol messages are identified by the 'DHCP Message Type' option (option code 51). Each message type is defined by the data value carried in the 'DHCP Message Type' option.
New DHCP options and message types may be defined after the publication of the DHCP specification to accommodate requirements for conveyance of new configuration parameters or to accommodate new protocol semantics. This document describes the procedure for defining new DHCP options and message types. |
|
| |
| BCP 44 | Use of HTTP State Management |
| |
| Authors: | K. Moore, N. Freed. |
| Date: | October 2000 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 2964 |
|
The mechanisms described in "HTTP State Management Mechanism" (RFC-2965), and its predecessor (RFC-2109), can be used for many different purposes. However, some current and potential uses of the protocol are controversial because they have significant user privacy and security implications. This memo identifies specific uses ofHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) State Management protocol which are either (a) not recommended by the IETF, or (b) believed to be harmful, and discouraged. This memo also details additional privacy considerations which are not covered by the HTTP State Management protocol specification. |
|
| |
| BCP 45 | IETF Discussion List Charter |
| |
|
|
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical issues, and hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed.Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature. |
|
| |
| BCP 46 | Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures |
| |
|
|
The purpose of this document is to express what the engineering community as represented by the IETF expects of Internet ServiceProviders (ISPs) with respect to security.
It is not the intent of this document to define a set of requirements that would be appropriate for all ISPs, but rather to raise awareness among ISPs of the community's expectations, and to provide the community with a framework for discussion of security expectations with current and prospective service providers. |
|
| |
| BCP 47 | Language Tags |
| |
|
|
This document describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object, how to register values for use in this language tag, and a construct for matching such language tags. |
|
| |
| BCP 48 | End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links |
| |
| Authors: | S. Dawkins, G. Montenegro, M. Kojo, V. Magret. |
| Date: | July 2001 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3150 |
|
This document makes performance-related recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low bit-rate" links.
"Very low bit-rate" implies "slower than we would like". This recommendation may be useful in any network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the design space for this recommendation explicitly includes connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed.
This document discusses general-purpose mechanisms. Where application-specific mechanisms can outperform the relevant general- purpose mechanism, we point this out and explain why.
This document has some recommendations in common with RFC 2689,"Providing integrated services over low-bitrate links", especially in areas like header compression. This document focuses more on traditional data applications for which "best-effort delivery" is appropriate. |
|
| |
| BCP 49 | Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA) |
| |
|
|
This document discusses the need for delegation of the IP6.ARPA DNS zone, and specifies a plan for the technical operation thereof. |
|
| |
| BCP 50 | End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors |
| |
| Authors: | S. Dawkins, G. Montenegro, M. Kojo, V. Magret, N. Vaidya. |
| Date: | August 2001 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3155 |
|
This document discusses the specific TCP mechanisms that are problematic in environments with high uncorrected error rates, and discusses what can be done to mitigate the problems without introducing intermediate devices into the connection. |
|
| |
| BCP 51 | IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments |
| |
|
|
This memo provides guidance for the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 multicast addresses. |
|
| |
| BCP 52 | Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa") |
| |
| Authors: | G. Huston, Ed.. |
| Date: | September 2001 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3172 |
|
This memo describes the management and operational requirements for the address and routing parameter area ("arpa") domain. The "arpa" domain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier spaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of a structured name space derived from a protocol family to service names. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is essential to the integrity of operation of various services within the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the responsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the "arpa" domain.This document describes the principles used by the IAB in undertaking this role. |
|
| |
| BCP 53 | GLOP Addressing in 233/8 |
| |
|
|
This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically assigned multicast addresses. |
|
| |
| BCP 54 | IETF Guidelines for Conduct |
| |
|
|
This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The Guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work. |
|
| |
| BCP 55 | Guidelines for Evidence Collection and Archiving |
| |
| Authors: | D. Brezinski, T. Killalea. |
| Date: | February 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3227 |
|
A "security incident" as defined in the "Internet Security Glossary",RFC 2828, is a security-relevant system event in which the system's security policy is disobeyed or otherwise breached. The purpose of this document is to provide System Administrators with guidelines on the collection and archiving of evidence relevant to such a security incident.
If evidence collection is done correctly, it is much more useful in apprehending the attacker, and stands a much greater chance of being admissible in the event of a prosecution. |
|
| |
| BCP 56 | On the use of HTTP as a Substrate |
| |
|
|
Recently there has been widespread interest in using HypertextTransfer Protocol (HTTP) as a substrate for other applications-level protocols. This document recommends technical particulars of such use, including use of default ports, URL schemes, and HTTP security mechanisms. |
|
| |
| BCP 57 | IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) |
| |
|
|
This memo requests that the IANA create a registry for fields in theIGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol) protocol header, and provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for those fields. |
|
| |
| BCP 58 | Defining the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | P. Hoffman, S. Bradner. |
| Date: | February 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3233 |
|
This document gives a more concrete definition of "the IETF" as it understood today. Many RFCs refer to "the IETF". Many importantIETF documents speak of the IETF as if it were an already-defined entity. However, no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. |
|
| |
| BCP 59 | A Transient Prefix for Identifying Profiles under Development by the Working Groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force |
| |
|
|
As a part of their deliverables, working groups of the IETF may develop BEEP profiles. During the development process, it is desirable to assign a transient identifier to each profile. If the profile is subsequently published as an RFC, then a permanent identifier is subsequently assigned by the IANA. |
|
| |
| BCP 60 | Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful |
| |
|
|
This document is being written because there are a number of firewalls in the Internet that inappropriately reset a TCP connection upon receiving certain TCP SYN packets, in particular, packets with flags set in the Reserved field of the TCP header. In this document we argue that this practice is not conformant with TCP standards, and is an inappropriate overloading of the semantics of the TCP reset.We also consider the longer-term consequences of this and similar actions as obstacles to the evolution of the Internet infrastructure. |
|
| |
| BCP 61 | Strong Security Requirements for Internet Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols |
| |
|
|
It is the consensus of the IETF that IETF standard protocols MUST make use of appropriate strong security mechanisms. This document describes the history and rationale for this doctrine and establishes this doctrine as a best current practice. |
|
| |
| BCP 62 | Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) |
| |
| Authors: | G. Fairhurst, L. Wood. |
| Date: | August 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3366 |
|
This document provides advice to the designers of digital communication equipment and link-layer protocols employing link-layerAutomatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This document presumes that the designers wish to support Internet protocols, but may be unfamiliar with the architecture of the Internet and with the implications of their design choices for the performance and efficiency of Internet traffic carried over their links.
ARQ is described in a general way that includes its use over a wide range of underlying physical media, including cellular wireless, wireless LANs, RF links, and other types of channel. This document also describes issues relevant to supporting IP traffic over physical-layer channels where performance varies, and where link ARQ is likely to be used. |
|
| |
| BCP 63 | Session Initiation Protocol for Telephones (SIP-T): Context and Architectures |
| |
| Authors: | A. Vemuri, J. Peterson. |
| Date: | September 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3372 |
|
The popularity of gateways that interwork between the PSTN (PublicSwitched Telephone Network) and SIP networks has motivated the publication of a set of common practices that can assure consistent behavior across implementations. This document taxonomizes the uses of PSTN-SIP gateways, provides uses cases, and identifies mechanisms necessary for interworking. The mechanisms detail how SIP provides for both 'encapsulation' (bridging the PSTN signaling across a SIP network) and 'translation' (gatewaying). |
|
| |
| BCP 64 | Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) |
| |
|
|
This document provides procedures for registering extensible elements of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document also provides guidelines to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) describing conditions under which new values can be assigned. |
|
| |
| BCP 65 | Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures |
| |
|
|
This document is fifth in a series that is completely specified in"Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: TheComprehensive DDDS" (RFC 3401). It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand any document in this series without reading the others. |
|
| |
| BCP 66 | Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, D. van Gulik, R. Iannella, P. Faltstrom. |
| Date: | October 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2611 |
| Also: | RFC 3406 |
|
This document lays out general definitions of and mechanisms for establishing Uniform Resource Names (URN) "namespaces". The URN WG has defined a syntax for URNs in RFC 2141, as well as some proposed mechanisms for their resolution and use in Internet applications inRFC 3401 and RFC 3405. The whole rests on the concept of individual"namespaces" within the URN structure. Apart from proof-of-concept namespaces, the use of existing identifiers in URNs has been discussed in RFC 2288. |
|
| |
| BCP 67 | Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area |
| |
|
|
This memo documents a process intended to apply architectural discipline to the future development of the Session InitiationProtocol (SIP). There have been concerns with regards to new SIP proposals. Specifically, that the addition of new SIP features can be damaging towards security and/or greatly increase the complexity of the protocol. The Transport Area directors, along with the SIP and Session Initiation Proposal Investigation (SIPPING) working group chairs, have provided suggestions for SIP modifications and extensions. |
|
| |
| BCP 68 | Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update |
| |
|
|
This document describes updates to the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA) considerations for the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol(L2TP). |
|
| |
| BCP 69 | TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry |
| |
| Authors: | H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, G. Fairhurst, M. Sooriyabandara. |
| Date: | December 2002 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3449 |
|
This document describes TCP performance problems that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons. However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both cases: performance often degrades significantly because of imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver to the sender.
The document details several mitigations to these effects, which have either been proposed or evaluated in the literature, or are currently deployed in networks. These solutions use a combination of local link-layer techniques, subnetwork, and end-to-end mechanisms, consisting of: (i) techniques to manage the channel used for the upstream bottleneck link carrying the ACKs, typically using header compression or reducing the frequency of TCP ACKs, (ii) techniques to handle this reduced ACK frequency to retain the TCP sender's acknowledgment-triggered self-clocking and (iii) techniques to schedule the data and ACK packets in the reverse direction to improve performance in the presence of two-way traffic. Each technique is described, together with known issues, and recommendations for use.A summary of the recommendations is provided at the end of the document. |
|
| |
| BCP 70 | Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols |
| |
| Authors: | S. Hollenbeck, M. Rose, L. Masinter. |
| Date: | January 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3470 |
|
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a framework for structuring data. While it evolved from Standard Generalized Markup Language(SGML) -- a markup language primarily focused on structuring documents -- XML has evolved to be a widely-used mechanism for representing structured data.
There are a wide variety of Internet protocols being developed; many have need for a representation for structured data relevant to their application. There has been much interest in the use of XML as a representation method. This document describes basic XML concepts, analyzes various alternatives in the use of XML, and provides guidelines for the use of XML within IETF standards-track protocols. |
|
| |
| BCP 71 | TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation Wireless Networks |
| |
| Authors: | H. Inamura, Ed., G. Montenegro, Ed., R. Ludwig, A. Gurtov, F. Khafizov. |
| Date: | February 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3481 |
|
This document describes a profile for optimizing TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and third (3G) generation wireless networks. It describes the relevant characteristics of 2.5G and 3G networks, and specific features of example deployments of such networks. It then recommends TCP algorithm choices for nodes known to be starting or ending on such paths, and it also discusses open issues. The configuration options recommended in this document are commonly found in modern TCP stacks, and are widely available standards-track mechanisms that the community considers safe for use on the general Internet. |
|
| |
| BCP 72 | Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations |
| |
| Authors: | E. Rescorla, B. Korver. |
| Date: | July 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3552 |
|
All RFCs are required to have a Security Considerations section.Historically, such sections have been relatively weak. This document provides guidelines to RFC authors on how to write a good SecurityConsiderations section. |
|
| |
| BCP 73 | An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters |
| |
| Authors: | M. Mealling, L. Masinter, T. Hardie, G. Klyne. |
| Date: | June 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3553 |
|
This document describes a new sub-delegation for the 'ietf' URN namespace for registered protocol items. The 'ietf' URN namespace is defined in RFC 2648 as a root for persistent URIs that refer toIETF-defined resources. |
|
| |
| BCP 74 | Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework |
| |
| Authors: | R. Frye, D. Levi, S. Routhier, B. Wijnen. |
| Date: | August 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2576 |
| Also: | RFC 3584 |
|
The purpose of this document is to describe coexistence between version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework,(SNMPv3), version 2 of the Internet-standard Network ManagementFramework (SNMPv2), and the original Internet-standard NetworkManagement Framework (SNMPv1). This document also describes how to convert MIB modules from SMIv1 format to SMIv2 format. This document obsoletes RFC 2576. |
|
| |
| BCP 75 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Examples |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, K. Summers. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3665 |
|
This document gives examples of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) call flows. Elements in these call flows include SIP User Agents andClients, SIP Proxy and Redirect Servers. Scenarios include SIPRegistration and SIP session establishment. Call flow diagrams and message details are shown. |
|
| |
| BCP 76 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Call Flows |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, K. Summers. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3666 |
|
This document contains best current practice examples of SessionInitiation Protocol (SIP) call flows showing interworking with thePublic Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Elements in these call flows include SIP User Agents, SIP Proxy Servers, and PSTN Gateways.Scenarios include SIP to PSTN, PSTN to SIP, and PSTN to PSTN via SIP.PSTN telephony protocols are illustrated using ISDN (IntegratedServices Digital Network), ISUP (ISDN User Part), and FGB (FeatureGroup B) circuit associated signaling. PSTN calls are illustrated using global telephone numbers from the PSTN and private extensions served on by a PBX (Private Branch Exchange). Call flow diagrams and message details are shown. |
|
| |
| BCP 77 | IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, Ed., Internet Architecture Board. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3677 |
|
This memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of Trustees appointment. |
|
| |
| BCP 78 | Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust |
| |
|
|
The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026, and, with RFC 3668, replaces Section 10 of RFC2026. |
|
| |
| BCP 79 | Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology |
| |
|
|
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 3667, replaces Section 10 ofRFC 2026. This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418. |
|
| |
| BCP 80 | Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA |
| |
| Authors: | R. Bush, R. Fink. |
| Date: | January 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3681 |
|
This document discusses the need for delegation of theE.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA DNS zone in order to enable reverse lookups for6bone addresses, and makes specific recommendations for the process needed to accomplish this. |
|
| |
| BCP 81 | The IETF XML Registry |
| |
|
|
This document describes an IANA maintained registry for IETF standards which use Extensible Markup Language (XML) related items such as Namespaces, Document Type Declarations (DTDs), Schemas, andResource Description Framework (RDF) Schemas. |
|
| |
| BCP 82 | Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful |
| |
|
|
When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. For example, to test a new DHCP option, one needs an option number to identify the new function. This document recommends that when writing IANA Considerations sections, authors should consider assigning a small range of numbers for experimentation purposes that implementers can use when testing protocol extensions or other new features. This document reserves some ranges of numbers for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to support experimentation has been identified. |
|
| |
| BCP 83 | A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists |
| |
|
|
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion.An important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad faith attacks become more common, the IETF needs to establish a practice that reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo recommends such a practice for use by the IETF. |
|
| |
| BCP 84 | Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks |
| |
|
|
BCP 38, RFC 2827, is designed to limit the impact of distributed denial of service attacks, by denying traffic with spoofed addresses access to the network, and to help ensure that traffic is traceable to its correct source network. As a side effect of protecting theInternet against such attacks, the network implementing the solution also protects itself from this and other attacks, such as spoofed management access to networking equipment. There are cases when this may create problems, e.g., with multihoming. This document describes the current ingress filtering operational mechanisms, examines generic issues related to ingress filtering, and delves into the effects on multihoming in particular. This memo updates RFC 2827. |
|
| |
| BCP 85 | Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
| Authors: | J. Rosenberg, J. Peterson, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo. |
| Date: | April 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3725 |
|
Third party call control refers to the ability of one entity to create a call in which communication is actually between other parties. Third party call control is possible using the mechanisms specified within the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). However, there are several possible approaches, each with different benefits and drawbacks. This document discusses best current practices for the usage of SIP for third party call control. |
|
| |
| BCP 86 | Determining Strengths For Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys |
| |
| Authors: | H. Orman, P. Hoffman. |
| Date: | April 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3766 |
|
Implementors of systems that use public key cryptography to exchange symmetric keys need to make the public keys resistant to some predetermined level of attack. That level of attack resistance is the strength of the system, and the symmetric keys that are exchanged must be at least as strong as the system strength requirements. The three quantities, system strength, symmetric key strength, and public key strength, must be consistently matched for any network protocol usage.
While it is fairly easy to express the system strength requirements in terms of a symmetric key length and to choose a cipher that has a key length equal to or exceeding that requirement, it is harder to choose a public key that has a cryptographic strength meeting a symmetric key strength requirement. This document explains how to determine the length of an asymmetric key as a function of a symmetric key strength requirement. Some rules of thumb for estimating equivalent resistance to large-scale attacks on various algorithms are given. The document also addresses how changing the sizes of the underlying large integers (moduli, group sizes, exponents, and so on) changes the time to use the algorithms for key exchange. |
|
| |
| BCP 87 | Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric |
| |
| Authors: | F. Le Faucheur, R. Uppili, A. Vedrenne, P. Merckx, T. Telkamp. |
| Date: | May 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3785 |
|
This document describes a common practice on how the existing metric of Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) can be used as an alternative metric to the Traffic Engineering (TE) metric for Constraint BasedRouting of MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering tunnels. This effectively results in the ability to performConstraint Based Routing with optimization of one metric (e.g., link bandwidth) for some Traffic Engineering tunnels (e.g., Data Trunks) while optimizing another metric (e.g., propagation delay) for some other tunnels with different requirements (e.g., Voice Trunks). No protocol extensions or modifications are required. This text documents current router implementations and deployment practices. |
|
| |
| BCP 88 | IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) |
| |
|
|
The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Extensions working group (pppext) includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against further enhancements of questionable value." In support of that charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers will no longer be "first come first served." |
|
| |
| BCP 89 | Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers |
| |
| Authors: | P. Karn, Ed., C. Bormann, G. Fairhurst, D. Grossman, R. Ludwig, J. Mahdavi, G. Montenegro, J. Touch, L. Wood. |
| Date: | July 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3819 |
|
This document provides advice to the designers of digital communication equipment, link-layer protocols, and packet-switched local networks (collectively referred to as subnetworks), who wish to support the Internet protocols but may be unfamiliar with theInternet architecture and the implications of their design choices on the performance and efficiency of the Internet. |
|
| |
| BCP 90 | Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields |
| |
| Authors: | G. Klyne, M. Nottingham, J. Mogul. |
| Date: | September 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3864 |
|
This specification defines registration procedures for the message header fields used by Internet mail, HTTP, Netnews and other applications. |
|
| |
| BCP 91 | DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | A. Durand, J. Ihren. |
| Date: | September 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3901 |
|
This memo provides guidelines and Best Current Practice for operatingDNS in a world where queries and responses are carried in a mixed environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. |
|
| |
| BCP 92 | IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions |
| |
|
|
This document describes the IESG's procedures for handling documents submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the changes proposed by the IESG at the Seoul IETF, March 2004.
This document updates procedures described in RFC 2026 and RFC 3710. |
|
| |
| BCP 93 | A Model for IETF Process Experiments |
| |
| Authors: | J. Klensin, S. Dawkins. |
| Date: | November 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3933 |
|
The IETF has designed process changes over the last ten years in one of two ways: announcement by the IESG, sometimes based on informal agreements with limited community involvement and awareness, and formal use of the same mechanism used for protocol specification.The first mechanism has often proven to be too lightweight, the second too heavyweight.
This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model rather than those previously attempted. |
|
| |
| BCP 95 | A Mission Statement for the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand. |
| Date: | October 2004 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 3935 |
|
This memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led to this point. |
|
| |
| BCP 96 | Procedures for Modifying the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) |
| |
|
|
This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource reSerVationProtocol (RSVP). This memo also lays out new assignment guidelines for number spaces for RSVP messages, object classes, class-types, and sub-objects. |
|
| |
| BCP 97 | Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents |
| |
|
|
IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not have a normative reference to another standards track document at a lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other than specifications from other standards bodies). For example, a standards track document may not have a normative reference to an informational RFC. Exceptions to this rule are sometimes needed as the IETF uses informational RFCs to describe non-IETF standards orIETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This document clarifies and updates the procedure used in these circumstances. |
|
| |
| BCP 98 | The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
|
|
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header field parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry. |
|
| |
| BCP 99 | The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
|
|
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and SIPS UniformResource Identifier (URI) parameters, and their values. It also lists the already existing parameters to be used as initial values for that registry. |
|
| |
| BCP 100 | Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points |
| |
| Authors: | K. Kompella, A. Zinin. |
| Date: | February 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4020 |
|
This memo discusses earlier allocation of code points by IANA as a remedy to the problem created by the "Standards Action" IANA policy for protocols for which, by the IETF process, implementation and deployment experience is desired or required prior to publication. |
|
| |
| BCP 101 | Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) |
| |
| Authors: | R. Austein, Ed., B. Wijnen, Ed., B. Carpenter, Ed., L. Lynch, Ed.. |
| Date: | January 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4071, RFC 4371 |
|
This document describes the structure of the IETF AdministrativeSupport Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the InternetSociety (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of theIETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETFAdministrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. |
|
| |
| BCP 102 | IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, Ed., Internet Architecture Board. |
| Date: | April 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4052 |
|
This document discusses the procedures used by the IAB to establish and maintain liaison relationships between the IETF and otherStandards Development Organizations (SDOs), consortia and industry fora. This document also discusses the appointment and responsibilities of IETF liaison managers and representatives, and the expectations of the IAB for organizations with whom liaison relationships are established. |
|
| |
| BCP 103 | Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | S. Trowbridge, S. Bradner, F. Baker. |
| Date: | April 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4053 |
|
This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming liaison statements from other standards development organizations(SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and industry fora. This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate with other organizations in the international standards community.
The IETF expects that liaison statements might come from a variety of organizations, and it may choose to respond to many of those. TheIETF is only obligated to respond if there is an agreed liaison relationship, however. |
|
| |
| BCP 104 | Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity |
| |
|
|
As the Internet has evolved, many types of arrangements have been advertised and sold as "Internet connectivity". Because these may differ significantly in the capabilities they offer, the range of options, and the lack of any standard terminology, the effort to distinguish between these services has caused considerable consumer confusion. This document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the type and character of services being offered. |
|
| |
| BCP 105 | Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful |
| |
|
|
This document discourages the practice of embedding references to unique, globally-routable IP addresses in Internet hosts, describes some of the resulting problems, and considers selected alternatives.This document is intended to clarify best current practices in this regard. |
|
| |
| BCP 106 | Randomness Requirements for Security |
| |
| Authors: | D. Eastlake 3rd, J. Schiller, S. Crocker. |
| Date: | June 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1750 |
| Also: | RFC 4086 |
|
Security systems are built on strong cryptographic algorithms that foil pattern analysis attempts. However, the security of these systems is dependent on generating secret quantities for passwords, cryptographic keys, and similar quantities. The use of pseudo-random processes to generate secret quantities can result in pseudo- security. A sophisticated attacker may find it easier to reproduce the environment that produced the secret quantities and to search the resulting small set of possibilities than to locate the quantities in the whole of the potential number space.
Choosing random quantities to foil a resourceful and motivated adversary is surprisingly difficult. This document points out many pitfalls in using poor entropy sources or traditional pseudo-random number generation techniques for generating such quantities. It recommends the use of truly random hardware techniques and shows that the existing hardware on many systems can be used for this purpose.It provides suggestions to ameliorate the problem when a hardware solution is not available, and it gives examples of how large such quantities need to be for some applications. |
|
| |
| BCP 107 | Guidelines for Cryptographic Key Management |
| |
| Authors: | S. Bellovin, R. Housley. |
| Date: | June 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4107 |
|
The question often arises of whether a given security system requires some form of automated key management, or whether manual keying is sufficient. This memo provides guidelines for making such decisions.When symmetric cryptographic mechanisms are used in a protocol, the presumption is that automated key management is generally but not always needed. If manual keying is proposed, the burden of proving that automated key management is not required falls to the proposer. |
|
| |
| BCP 108 | IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry |
| |
|
|
This memo defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). It assigns and registers an initial set of OBJECT IDENTITIES to currently defined metrics in the IETF.
This memo also defines the rules for adding IP Performance Metrics that are defined in the future and for encouraging all IP performance metrics to be registered here.
IANA has been assigned to administer this new registry. |
|
| |
| BCP 109 | Deprecation of "ip6.int" |
| |
|
|
This document advises of the deprecation of the use of "ip6.int" forStandards Conformant IPv6 implementations. |
|
| |
| BCP 110 | Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP (TCRTP) |
| |
| Authors: | B. Thompson, T. Koren, D. Wing. |
| Date: | November 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4170 |
|
This document describes a method to improve the bandwidth utilization of RTP streams over network paths that carry multiple Real-timeTransport Protocol (RTP) streams in parallel between two endpoints, as in voice trunking. The method combines standard protocols that provide compression, multiplexing, and tunneling over a network path for the purpose of reducing the bandwidth used when multiple RTP streams are carried over that path. |
|
| |
| BCP 111 | Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents |
| |
|
|
This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB modules. Applicable portions may be used as a basis for reviews of other MIB documents. |
|
| |
| BCP 112 | Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2 Packets and Congestion Avoidance |
| |
| Authors: | G. Choudhury, Ed.. |
| Date: | October 2005 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4222 |
|
This document recommends methods that are intended to improve the scalability and stability of large networks using Open Shortest PathFirst (OSPF) Version 2 protocol. The methods include processing OSPFHellos and Link State Advertisement (LSA) Acknowledgments at a higher priority compared to other OSPF packets, and other congestion avoidance procedures. |
|
| |
| BCP 113 | The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process |
| |
| Authors: | G. Huston, Ed., B. Wijnen, Ed.. |
| Date: | December 2005 |
| Also: | RFC 4333 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 114 | BGP Communities for Data Collection |
| |
|
|
BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network and to its peers and customers. With the advent of large-scale BGP data collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding of the global routing system. This memo defines standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP route collectors. |
|
| |
| BCP 116 | IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) |
| |
|
|
This document allocates the fixed pseudowire identifier and other fixed protocol values for protocols that have been defined in thePseudo Wire Edge to Edge (PWE3) working group. Detailed IANA allocation instructions are also included in this document. |
|
| |
| BCP 117 | Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and QSIG |
| |
| Authors: | J. Elwell, F. Derks, P. Mourot, O. Rousseau. |
| Date: | May 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4497 |
|
This document specifies interworking between the Session InitiationProtocol (SIP) and QSIG within corporate telecommunication networks(also known as enterprise networks). SIP is an Internet application-layer control (signalling) protocol for creating, modifying, and terminating sessions with one or more participants.These sessions include, in particular, telephone calls. QSIG is a signalling protocol for creating, modifying, and terminating circuit-switched calls (in particular, telephone calls) withinPrivate Integrated Services Networks (PISNs). QSIG is specified in a number of Ecma Standards and published also as ISO/IEC standards. |
|
| |
| BCP 118 | Considerations for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Extensions |
| |
|
|
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is extensible. It provides mechanisms for adding new operations, extending existing operations, and expanding user and system schemas. This document discusses considerations for designers of LDAP extensions. |
|
| |
| BCP 119 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, O. Levin. |
| Date: | August 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4579 |
|
This specification defines conferencing call control features for theSession Initiation Protocol (SIP). This document builds on theConferencing Requirements and Framework documents to define how a tightly coupled SIP conference works. The approach is explored from the perspective of different user agent (UA) types: conference- unaware, conference-aware, and focus UAs. The use of UniformResource Identifiers (URIs) in conferencing, OPTIONS for capabilities discovery, and call control using REFER are covered in detail with example call flow diagrams. The usage of the isfocus feature tag is defined. |
|
| |
| BCP 120 | Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8 |
| |
| Authors: | D. Meyer, R. Rockell, G. Shepherd. |
| Date: | August 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4608 |
|
IP Multicast group addresses in the 232/8 (232.0.0.0 to232.255.255.255) range are designated as source-specific multicast destination addresses and are reserved for use by source-specific multicast applications and protocols. This document defines operational recommendations to ensure source-specific behavior within the 232/8 range. |
|
| |
| BCP 121 | Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Deployment Scenarios |
| |
| Authors: | M. McBride, J. Meylor, D. Meyer. |
| Date: | August 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4611 |
|
This document describes best current practices for intra-domain and inter-domain deployment of the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol(MSDP) in conjunction with Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode(PIM-SM). |
|
| |
| BCP 122 | Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan |
| |
|
|
This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the address space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.This document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing(CIDR) spec in RFC 1519, with changes made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the results of deploying the technology described. |
|
| |
| BCP 123 | Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior |
| |
| Authors: | M. Larson, P. Barber. |
| Date: | October 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4697 |
|
This memo describes DNS iterative resolver behavior that results in a significant query volume sent to the root and top-level domain (TLD) name servers. We offer implementation advice to iterative resolver developers to alleviate these unnecessary queries. The recommendations made in this document are a direct byproduct of observation and analysis of abnormal query traffic patterns seen at two of the thirteen root name servers and all thirteen com/net TLD name servers. |
|
| |
| BCP 124 | Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field |
| |
|
|
There have been a number of proposals for alternate semantics for theExplicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field in the IP header RFC3168. This document discusses some of the issues in defining alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements for a safe coexistence in an Internet that could include routers that do not understand the defined alternate semantics. This document evolved as a result of discussions with the authors of one recent proposal for such alternate semantics. |
|
| |
| BCP 125 | Procedures for Protocol Extensions and Variations |
| |
| Authors: | S. Bradner, B. Carpenter, Ed., T. Narten. |
| Date: | December 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4775 |
|
This document discusses procedural issues related to the extensibility of IETF protocols, including when it is reasonable to extend IETF protocols with little or no review, and when extensions or variations need to be reviewed by the IETF community. Experience has shown that extension of protocols without early IETF review can carry risk. The document also recommends that major extensions to or variations of IETF protocols only take place through normal IETF processes or in coordination with the IETF.
This document is directed principally at other Standards DevelopmentOrganizations (SDOs) and vendors considering requirements for extensions to IETF protocols. It does not modify formal IETF processes. |
|
| |
| BCP 126 | Operation of Anycast Services |
| |
| Authors: | J. Abley, K. Lindqvist. |
| Date: | December 2006 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4786 |
|
As the Internet has grown, and as systems and networked services within enterprises have become more pervasive, many services with high availability requirements have emerged. These requirements have increased the demands on the reliability of the infrastructure on which those services rely.
Various techniques have been employed to increase the availability of services deployed on the Internet. This document presents commentary and recommendations for distribution of services using anycast. |
|
| |
| BCP 127 | Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP |
| |
| Authors: | F. Audet, Ed., C. Jennings. |
| Date: | January 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4787 |
|
This document defines basic terminology for describing different types of Network Address Translation (NAT) behavior when handlingUnicast UDP and also defines a set of requirements that would allow many applications, such as multimedia communications or online gaming, to work consistently. Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that these applications will function properly. |
|
| |
| BCP 128 | Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks |
| |
| Authors: | G. Swallow, S. Bryant, L. Andersson. |
| Date: | June 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4928 |
|
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of currently deployed MPLS networks. This document makes best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over anMPLS network that wishes to avoid the reordering that can result from transmission of different packets from the same flow over multiple different equal cost paths. These recommendations rely on inspection of the IP version number field in packets. Despite the heuristic nature of the recommendations, they provide a relatively safe way to operate MPLS networks, even if future allocations of IP version numbers were made for some purpose. |
|
| |
| BCP 129 | Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | L. Andersson, Ed., A. Farrel, Ed.. |
| Date: | June 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4929 |
|
This document provides guidelines for applying or extending the MPLS or GMPLS ((G)MPLS) protocol suites and clarifies the IETF's (G)MPLS working groups' responsibility for the (G)MPLS protocols. This document is directed to multi-vendor fora and Standards DevelopmentOrganizations (SDOs) to provide an understanding of (G)MPLS work in the IETF and documents the requisite use of IETF review procedures when considering (G)MPLS applications or protocol extensions in their work. This document does not modify IETF processes. |
|
| |
| BCP 130 | IANA Considerations for OSPF |
| |
| Authors: | K. Kompella, B. Fenner. |
| Date: | July 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4940 |
|
This memo creates a number of OSPF registries and provides guidance to IANA for assignment of code points within these registries. |
|
| |
| BCP 131 | Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) |
| |
|
|
This document recommends using one UDP port pair for both communication directions of bidirectional RTP and RTP ControlProtocol (RTCP) sessions, commonly called "symmetric RTP" and"symmetric RTCP". |
|
| |
| BCP 132 | Guidance for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management |
| |
| Authors: | R. Housley, B. Aboba. |
| Date: | July 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 4962 |
|
This document provides guidance to designers of Authentication,Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) key management protocols. The guidance is also useful to designers of systems and solutions that include AAA key management protocols. Given the complexity and difficulty in designing secure, long-lasting key management algorithms and protocols by experts in the field, it is almost certainly inappropriate for IETF working groups without deep expertise in the area to be designing their own key management algorithms and protocols based on Authentication, Authorization, andAccounting (AAA) protocols. The guidelines in this document apply to documents requesting publication as IETF RFCs. Further, these guidelines will be useful to other standards development organizations (SDOs) that specify AAA key management. |
|
| |
| BCP 133 | Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms |
| |
| Authors: | S. Floyd, M. Allman. |
| Date: | August 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5033 |
|
The IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely shown to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed networks). Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion control schemes that significantly differ from the IETF's congestion control principles. Using these new congestion control schemes in the global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic using the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently standardized congestion control. Therefore, the IETF must proceed with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control proposals. The goal of this document is to provide guidance for considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF. |
|
| |
| BCP 134 | Email Submission Operations: Access and Accountability Requirements |
| |
| Authors: | C. Hutzler, D. Crocker, P. Resnick, E. Allman, T. Finch. |
| Date: | November 2007 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5068 |
|
Email has become a popular distribution service for a variety of socially unacceptable, mass-effect purposes. The most obvious ones include spam and worms. This note recommends conventions for the operation of email submission and transport services between independent operators, such as enterprises and Internet ServiceProviders. Its goal is to improve lines of accountability for controlling abusive uses of the Internet mail service. To this end, this document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies between independent operators of email submission and transmission services.
Email authentication technologies are aimed at providing assurances and traceability between internetworked networks. In many email services, the weakest link in the chain of assurances is initial submission of a message. This document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies for this first step of email sending, the submission (or posting) of email into the transmission network. Relaying and delivery entail policies that occur subsequent to submission and are outside the scope of this document. |
|
| |
| BCP 135 | IP Multicast Requirements for a Network Address Translator (NAT) and a Network Address Port Translator (NAPT) |
| |
| Authors: | D. Wing, T. Eckert. |
| Date: | February 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5135 |
|
This document specifies requirements for a for a Network AddressTranslator (NAT) and a Network Address Port Translator (NAPT) that support Any Source IP Multicast or Source-Specific IP Multicast. AnIP multicast-capable NAT device that adheres to the requirements of this document can optimize the operation of IP multicast applications that are generally unaware of IP multicast NAT devices. |
|
| |
| BCP 136 | Secure Connectivity and Mobility Using Mobile IPv4 and IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming (MOBIKE) |
| |
| Authors: | V. Devarapalli, P. Eronen. |
| Date: | June 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5266 |
|
Enterprise users require mobility and secure connectivity when they roam and connect to the services offered in the enterprise. Secure connectivity is required when the user connects to the enterprise from an untrusted network. Mobility is beneficial when the user moves, either inside or outside the enterprise network, and acquires a new IP address. This document describes a solution using MobileIPv4 (MIPv4) and mobility extensions to IKEv2 (MOBIKE) to provide secure connectivity and mobility. |
|
| |
| BCP 137 | ASCII Escaping of Unicode Characters |
| |
|
|
There are a number of circumstances in which an escape mechanism is needed in conjunction with a protocol to encode characters that cannot be represented or transmitted directly. With ASCII coding, the traditional escape has been either the decimal or hexadecimal numeric value of the character, written in a variety of different ways. The move to Unicode, where characters occupy two or more octets and may be coded in several different forms, has further complicated the question of escapes. This document discusses some options now in use and discusses considerations for selecting one for use in new IETF protocols, and protocols that are now being internationalized. |
|
| |
| BCP 138 | A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes |
| |
|
|
The specification for enhanced mail system status codes, RFC 3463, establishes a new code model and lists a collection of status codes.While it anticipated that more codes would be added over time, it did not provide an explicit mechanism for registering and tracking those codes. This document specifies an IANA registry for mail system enhanced status codes, and initializes that registry with the codes so far established in published standards-track documents, as well as other codes that have become established in the industry. |
|
| |
| BCP 139 | Templates for Internet-Drafts Containing MIB Modules |
| |
| Authors: | D. Harrington, Ed.. |
| Date: | July 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5249 |
|
This memo references three annotated templates for IETF documents that contain the definition of MIB modules. It is intended to reduce the work of the editors of such documents, making these documents more uniform and easier to read and review, thus furthering the quality of such documents and expediting their publication. |
|
| |
| BCP 140 | Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks |
| |
| Authors: | J. Damas, F. Neves. |
| Date: | October 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5358 |
|
This document describes ways to prevent the use of default configured recursive nameservers as reflectors in Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. It provides recommended configuration as measures to mitigate the attack. |
|
| |
| BCP 141 | IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters |
| |
|
|
Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802 parameters. This document discusses some use of such parameters inIETF protocols and specifies IANA considerations for allocation of code points under the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier). |
|
| |
| BCP 142 | NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP |
| |
| Authors: | S. Guha, Ed., K. Biswas, B. Ford, S. Sivakumar, P. Srisuresh. |
| Date: | October 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5382 |
|
This document defines a set of requirements for NATs that handle TCP that would allow many applications, such as peer-to-peer applications and online games to work consistently. Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that these applications will function properly. |
|
| |
| BCP 143 | Deployment Considerations for Lemonade-Compliant Mobile Email |
| |
|
|
This document discusses deployment issues and describes requirements for successful deployment of mobile email that are implicit in theIETF lemonade documents. |
|
| |
| BCP 144 | Session Initiation Protocol Service Examples |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, Ed., R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, S. Donovan, K. Summers. |
| Date: | October 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5359 |
|
This document gives examples of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) services. This covers most features offered in so-called IP Centrex offerings from local exchange carriers and PBX (Private BranchExchange) features. Most of the services shown in this document are implemented in the SIP user agents, although some require the assistance of a SIP proxy. Some require some extensions to SIP including the REFER, SUBSCRIBE, and NOTIFY methods and the Replaces and Join header fields. These features are not intended to be an exhaustive set, but rather show implementations of common features likely to be implemented on SIP IP telephones in a business environment. |
|
| |
| BCP 145 | Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers |
| |
| Authors: | L. Eggert, G. Fairhurst. |
| Date: | November 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5405 |
|
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a minimal message-passing transport that has no inherent congestion control mechanisms.Because congestion control is critical to the stable operation of theInternet, applications and upper-layer protocols that choose to useUDP as an Internet transport must employ mechanisms to prevent congestion collapse and to establish some degree of fairness with concurrent traffic. This document provides guidelines on the use ofUDP for the designers of unicast applications and upper-layer protocols. Congestion control guidelines are a primary focus, but the document also provides guidance on other topics, including message sizes, reliability, checksums, and middlebox traversal. |
|
| |
| BCP 146 | Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec Version 2 |
| |
|
|
The Security Considerations sections of many Internet Drafts say, in effect, "just use IPsec". While this is sometimes correct, more often it will leave users without real, interoperable security mechanisms. This memo offers some guidance on when IPsec Version 2 should and should not be specified. |
|
| |
| BCP 147 | Example Call Flows of Race Conditions in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
| Authors: | M. Hasebe, J. Koshiko, Y. Suzuki, T. Yoshikawa, P. Kyzivat. |
| Date: | December 2008 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5407 |
|
This document gives example call flows of race conditions in theSession Initiation Protocol (SIP). Race conditions are inherently confusing and difficult to thwart; this document shows the best practices to handle them. The elements in these call flows includeSIP User Agents and SIP Proxy Servers. Call flow diagrams and message details are given. |
|
| |
| BCP 148 | NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP |
| |
| Authors: | P. Srisuresh, B. Ford, S. Sivakumar, S. Guha. |
| Date: | April 2009 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5508 |
|
This document specifies the behavioral properties required of theNetwork Address Translator (NAT) devices in conjunction with theInternet Control Message Protocol (ICMP). The objective of this memo is to make NAT devices more predictable and compatible with diverse application protocols that traverse the devices. Companion documents provide behavioral recommendations specific to TCP, UDP, and other protocols. |
|
| |
| BCP 149 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer |
| |
| Authors: | R. Sparks, A. Johnston, Ed., D. Petrie. |
| Date: | June 2009 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5589 |
|
This document describes providing Call Transfer capabilities in theSession Initiation Protocol (SIP). SIP extensions such as REFER andReplaces are used to provide a number of transfer services including blind transfer, consultative transfer, and attended transfer. This work is part of the SIP multiparty call control framework. |
|
| |
| BCP 150 | Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | R. Denis-Courmont. |
| Date: | September 2009 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5597 |
|
This document defines a set of requirements for NATs handling theDatagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). These requirements allow DCCP applications, such as streaming applications, to operate consistently, and they are very similar to the TCP requirements forNATs, which have already been published by the IETF. Ensuring thatNATs meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will function properly. |
|
| |
| BCP 151 | H.248/MEGACO Registration Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | C. Groves, Y. Lin. |
| Date: | August 2009 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5615 |
|
This document updates the H.248/MEGACO IANA Package registration procedures in order to better describe the Package registration process and to provide a more formal review and feedback process. |
|
| |
| BCP 152 | DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines |
| |
|
|
This document provides guidelines for the implementation of DNS proxies, as found in broadband gateways and other similar network devices. |
|
| |
| BCP 153 | Special Use IPv4 Addresses |
| |
| Authors: | M. Cotton, L. Vegoda, J. Weil, V. Kuarsingh, C. Donley, C. Liljenstolpe, M. Azinger. |
| Date: | April 2012 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5735, RFC 6598 |
|
This document updates RFC 3777, Section 4, Bullet 13 to allow announcement of open positions and solicitation of volunteers to be issued before a Nominating and Recall Committee Chair has been named by the Internet Society President. |
|
| |
| BCP 154 | Considerations for Civic Addresses in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO): Guidelines and IANA Registry Definition |
| |
|
|
This document provides a guideline for creating civic address considerations documents for individual countries, as required by RFC4776. Furthermore, this document also creates an IANA Registry referring to such address considerations documents and registers such address considerations for Austria. |
|
| |
| BCP 155 | Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones |
| |
| Authors: | J. Abley, T. Manderson. |
| Date: | May 2010 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 5855 |
|
This document specifies a stable naming scheme for the nameservers that serve the zones IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA in the DNS. These zones contain data that facilitate reverse mapping (address to name). |
|
| |
| BCP 156 | Recommendations for Transport-Protocol Port Randomization |
| |
| Authors: | M. Larsen, F. Gont. |
| Date: | January 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6056 |
|
During the last few years, awareness has been raised about a number of "blind" attacks that can be performed against the TransmissionControl Protocol (TCP) and similar protocols. The consequences of these attacks range from throughput reduction to broken connections or data corruption. These attacks rely on the attacker's ability to guess or know the five-tuple (Protocol, Source Address, DestinationAddress, Source Port, Destination Port) that identifies the transport protocol instance to be attacked. This document describes a number of simple and efficient methods for the selection of the client port number, such that the possibility of an attacker guessing the exact value is reduced. While this is not a replacement for cryptographic methods for protecting the transport-protocol instance, the aforementioned port selection algorithms provide improved security with very little effort and without any key management overhead. The algorithms described in this document are local policies that may be incrementally deployed and that do not violate the specifications of any of the transport protocols that may benefit from them, such asTCP, UDP, UDP-lite, Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP),Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and RTP (provided that the RTP application explicitly signals the RTP and RTCP port numbers). |
|
| |
| BCP 157 | IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites |
| |
|
|
RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began reconsidering the policy in 2005.This document obsoletes the RFC 3177 recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for the operational community. The IETF's role in this case is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original recommendations in RFC 3177.Moreover, this document clarifies that a one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default.
This document obsoletes RFC 3177. |
|
| |
| BCP 158 | RADIUS Design Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | A. DeKok, Ed., G. Weber. |
| Date: | March 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6158 |
|
This document provides guidelines for the design of attributes used by the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol.It is expected that these guidelines will prove useful to authors and reviewers of future RADIUS attribute specifications, within the IETF as well as other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). |
|
| |
| BCP 159 | Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP Timestamps |
| |
|
|
This document describes an algorithm for processing incoming SYN segments that allows higher connection-establishment rates between any two TCP endpoints when a TCP Timestamps option is present in the incoming SYN segment. This document only modifies processing of SYN segments received for connections in the TIME-WAIT state; processing in all other states is unchanged. |
|
| |
| BCP 160 | An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications |
| |
| Authors: | R. Barnes, M. Lepinski, A. Cooper, J. Morris, H. Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne. |
| Date: | July 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Updates: | RFC 3693, RFC 3694 |
| Also: | RFC 6280 |
|
Location-based services (such as navigation applications, emergency services, and management of equipment in the field) need geographic location information about Internet hosts, their users, and other related entities. These applications need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, and at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This document describes an architecture for privacy-preserving location-based services in the Internet, focusing on authorization, security, and privacy requirements for the data formats and protocols used by these services. |
|
| |
| BCP 161 | Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" Acronym in the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | L. Andersson, H. van Helvoort, R. Bonica, D. Romascanu, S. Mansfield. |
| Date: | June 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6291 |
|
At first glance, the acronym "OAM" seems to be well-known and well- understood. Looking at the acronym a bit more closely reveals a set of recurring problems that are revisited time and again.
This document provides a definition of the acronym "OAM" (Operations,Administration, and Maintenance) for use in all future IETF documents that refer to OAM. There are other definitions and acronyms that will be discussed while exploring the definition of the constituent parts of the "OAM" term. |
|
| |
| BCP 162 | Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers |
| |
| Authors: | A. Durand, I. Gashinsky, D. Lee, S. Sheppard. |
| Date: | June 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6302 |
|
In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing techniques, this document recommends that Internet-facing servers log port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP address. |
|
| |
| BCP 163 | Locally Served DNS Zones |
| |
|
|
Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise.RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC1918 address space and other well-known zones with similar characteristics. |
|
| |
| BCP 164 | IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers |
| |
|
|
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer ProtocolIdentifier (NLPID). This document provides NLPID IANA considerations. |
|
| |
| BCP 165 | Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry |
| |
|
|
This document defines the procedures that the Internet AssignedNumbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol PortNumber registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability of the registry.
This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previousUDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA Allocation Guidelines, and it updates the IANA service name and port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite, the DatagramCongestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and the Stream ControlTransmission Protocol (SCTP). It also updates the DNS SRV specification to clarify what a service name is and how it is registered. |
|
| |
| BCP 166 | Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF |
| |
|
|
This document provides a list of terms used in the IETF when discussing internationalization. The purpose is to help frame discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants. |
|
| |
| BCP 167 | DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists |
| |
| Authors: | M. Kucherawy. |
| Date: | September 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6377 |
|
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) allows an ADministrative ManagementDomain (ADMD) to assume some responsibility for a message. Based on deployment experience with DKIM, this document provides guidance for the use of DKIM with scenarios that include Mailing List Managers(MLMs). |
|
| |
| BCP 168 | IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage |
| |
|
|
The IP Router Alert Option is an IP option that alerts transit routers to more closely examine the contents of an IP packet. TheResource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP), Pragmatic General Multicast(PGM), the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), MulticastListener Discovery (MLD), Multicast Router Discovery (MRD), andGeneral Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) are some of the protocols that make use of the IP Router Alert Option. This document discusses security aspects and usage guidelines around the use of the currentIP Router Alert Option, thereby updating RFC 2113 and RFC 2711.Specifically, it provides recommendations against using the RouterAlert in the end-to-end open Internet and identifies controlled environments where protocols depending on Router Alert can be used safely. It also provides recommendations about protection approaches for service providers. Finally, it provides brief guidelines forRouter Alert implementation on routers. |
|
| |
| BCP 169 | Unique Origin Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) per Node for Globally Anycasted Services |
| |
| Authors: | D. McPherson, R. Donnelly, F. Scalzo. |
| Date: | October 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6382 |
|
This document makes recommendations regarding the use of unique origin autonomous system numbers (ASNs) per node for globally anycasted critical infrastructure services in order to provide routing system discriminators for a given anycasted prefix. Network management and monitoring techniques, or other operational mechanisms, may employ this new discriminator in whatever manner best accommodates their operating environment. |
|
| |
| BCP 170 | Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development |
| |
| Authors: | A. Clark, B. Claise. |
| Date: | October 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6390 |
|
This document describes a framework and a process for developingPerformance Metrics of protocols and applications transported overIETF-specified protocols. These metrics can be used to characterize traffic on live networks and services. |
|
| |
| BCP 171 | Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s |
| |
|
|
It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated, fragile, and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the address space.
This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public Internet. |
|
| |
| BCP 172 | Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP |
| |
| Authors: | W. Kumari, K. Sriram. |
| Date: | December 2011 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6472 |
|
This document recommends against the use of the AS_SET andAS_CONFED_SET types of the AS_PATH in BGPv4. This is done to simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the semantics of the originator of a route more clear. This will also simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of ongoing work in the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. |
|
| |
| BCP 173 | Certificate Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Kent, D. Kong, K. Seo, R. Watro. |
| Date: | February 2012 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6484 |
|
This document describes the certificate policy for a Public KeyInfrastructure (PKI) used to support attestations about InternetNumber Resource (INR) holdings. Each organization that distributesIP addresses or Autonomous System (AS) numbers to an organization will, in parallel, issue a (public key) certificate reflecting this distribution. These certificates will enable verification that the resources indicated in the certificate have been distributed to the holder of the associated private key and that this organization is the current, unique holder of these resources. |
|
| |
| BCP 174 | Certification Authority (CA) Key Rollover in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) |
| |
| Authors: | G. Huston, G. Michaelson, S. Kent. |
| Date: | February 2012 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6489 |
|
This document describes how a Certification Authority (CA) in theResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) performs a planned rollover of its key pair. This document also notes the implications of this key rollover procedure for relying parties (RPs). In general, RPs are expected to maintain a local cache of the objects that have been published in the RPKI repository, and thus the way in which a CA performs key rollover impacts RPs. |
|
| |
| BCP 175 | Procedures for Maintaining the Time Zone Database |
| |
| Authors: | E. Lear, P. Eggert. |
| Date: | February 2012 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6557 |
|
Time zone information serves as a basic protocol element in protocols, such as the calendaring suite and DHCP. The Time Zone(TZ) Database specifies the indices used in various protocols, as well as their semantic meanings, for all localities throughout the world. This database has been meticulously maintained and distributed free of charge by a group of volunteers, coordinated by a single volunteer who is now planning to retire. This memo specifies procedures involved with maintenance of the TZ database and associated code, including how to submit proposed updates, how decisions for inclusion of those updates are made, and the selection of a designated expert by and for the time zone community. The intent of this memo is, to the extent possible, to document existing practice and provide a means to ease succession of the database maintainers. |
|
| |
| BCP 176 | IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing |
| |
| Authors: | R. Geib, Ed., A. Morton, R. Fardid, A. Steinmitz. |
| Date: | March 2012 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | RFC 6576 |
|
This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent instantiations of a performance-metric RFC have implemented the specifications in the same way. This is the performance-metric equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along theStandards Track. Results from different implementations of metricRFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions and compared using statistical methods. The goal is an evaluation of the metric RFC itself to determine whether its definitions are clear and unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for advancement on the IETF Standards Track. This document is anInternet Best Current Practice. |
|
