Network Working Group C. Groves Internet Draft NTEC Australia Intended status: BCP Y. Lin Expires: March 2008 Huawei October 2, 2007 H.248/MEGACO Package Registration Procedures draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract 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. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Updated Package Registration Procedures........................4 3. Formal Syntax..................................................6 4. Security Considerations........................................6 5. IANA Considerations............................................6 5.1. New IANA Package Registration Text........................7 6. Acknowledgments................................................9 7. References....................................................10 7.1. Normative References.....................................10 7.2. Informative References...................................10 Author's Addresses...............................................10 Intellectual Property Statement..................................10 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................11 1. Introduction Since the initial development of H.248/MEGACO a number of organizations have made use of the H.248/MEGACO protocol Package mechanism in order to allow a certain function to be controlled by H.248/MEGACO. The H.248/MEGACO package mechanism was in part introduced to allow organizations who had an in depth knowledge in a particular functional area to independently produce a package on this functionality. This acknowledged the fact that neither the IETF MEGACO Working Group nor the ITU-T Study Group 16 possessed in depth knowledge in all areas. Whilst this approach has been successful in the number and range of packages produced, in some cases these Packages were/are not fully aligned with H.248/MEGACO principles. Once a Package has been published and registered it is problematic to rectify any issues. The introduction of problems/inconsistencies was in part caused by the fact that the Packages were not fully reviewed by H.248/MEGACO experts. In fact the IANA H.248/MEGACO registration process did not actually specify that an in depth review should take place. The current H.248/MEGACO Package registration process was defined when ITU-T Study Group 16 and the IETF Megaco Working Groups were both active in Megaco/H.248 standardization and produced nearly all Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 the registered Packages. Packages were reviewed in the IETF MEGACO Working Group and the Working Group chair was the IANA technical expert in charge of the review of the requests for H.248 Package registration. This meant that H.248 Packages under went an informal review before being registered. However this has changed. The current situation is that now the IETF Megaco working group is disbanded and new H.248/MEGACO development occurs through Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 only (not withstanding email discussion on the IETF MEGACO mailing list). This move to ITU-T defined recommendations is discussed in [obsol3525]. Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package Package definition and IANA registration rules are updated to introduce a formal review step before the Package registration process is completed and ideally before the Package is published. This process would only be applicable to public Packages. As part of the Package development process Package developers are encouraged to send their Package for review to the ITU-T Study Group Question Rapporteur responsible for the H.248 sub-series (Question 3 of Study Group 16 at the time of writing). When registering the Package with IANA, package developers are required to send a copy of the package for review by the IANA appointed expert. It is recommended to register the Package before final approval by the group in question in order to solicit feedback on the quality of their Package. Where ever possible this review will be done in conjunction with other H.248/MEGACO experts (e.g. in Q.3/16 and/or the MEGACO mailing list). The existing IANA Package registration process is a two step process. When Packages are first registered they receive the status of "In Progress (IP)". This allows Package developers to request a PackageID before the document is fully approved. When the document is approved then a change of status to "Final", may be requested. The new procedure introduces the step that the IANA expert is consulted before a change of status is made. If the Package has been reviewed and is acceptable then the status may be changed to "Final". However if the package has not been provided for review or it has outstanding comments then the status shall remain at "IP". The goal of the updated text is to define a process that provides a timely technical review of packages to ensure that H.248/MEGACO packages are of good quality and minimize duplication. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 2. Updated Package Registration Procedures Amendment 1 to ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1v3 introduces the new H.248 Package registration procedures in clause 14. These new procedures are detailed below: 14 IANA considerations 14.1 Packages The following considerations shall be met to register a package with IANA: 1) A unique string name, unique serial number and version number is registered for each package. The string name is used as the PackageID for text encoding. The serial number is used as the PackageID for with binary encoding. Serial Numbers 0x8000 to 0xFFFF are reserved for private use. Serial number 0 is reserved. The unique string name and unique serial number may be requested by the package requestor or assigned by IANA. 2) The package requestor shall provide a contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall be specified. The contact information shall be updated by the defining organization as necessary. 3) The package requestor shall provide a reference to a document that describes the package, which should be public: The document shall specify the version of the package that it describes. If the document is public, it should be located on a public web server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be returned. If the document is not public, it must be made available for review at the time of the application. 4) IANA shall ensure that packages registered by other than recognized standards bodies shall have a minimum package name length of 8 characters. 5) IANA shall ensure that package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all other conditions are met. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 If the above five criteria are met then IANA shall register the following information in the registry as described below: 1. Binary ID (or serial number) 2. Text ID 3. Package version 4. Extension information - Binary ID and package version 5. Status - IP ("In Progress") or Final. "In Progress" indicates that the package has not been fully reviewed and approved therefore may contain errors or may not be consistent with H.248 principles. "Final" indicates that the Package has been reviewed and approved and is stable. 6. Package name, Reference and Contact information The documenting text does not have to be publicly available at the time of the registration request, however the text shall be provided for review at the time of application. IANA shall register new packages with a status of "IP". Package requestors are encouraged to request registration as early as practicable in the design process, to reserve a binary ID. Binary IDs shall be published in the document defining the package. Package requestors for non-private packages under development shall send the package text to IANA. This should occur as soon as practicable after the rough draft of the definition is completed and at least before the package is approved in order to ensure the package is consistent with H.248 methodologies and package design principles. The IANA shall forward the Package to the IANA Expert for review. During the review the input package will be compared to the Package template for completeness, as well as being compared against protocol syntax and procedures. It will be compared against existing work to see that it doesn't duplicate existing functionality. The Expert reviewer would then work towards a resolution of any issues with the Package requestor. The IANA Expert may complete the review in consultation with other H.248 experts (i.e. Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16). If the package is deemed suitable, the IANA Expert shall issue a statement indicating approval, copied to IANA. Once the package is complete, IANA shall be notified of the completion of the package by the group developing the package. Upon receipt of this notification, IANA shall update the registration details. IANA should notify the IANA Expert, and if the Package has Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 been reviewed and the comments addressed the status of the package shall be set to "Final". Otherwise the status should remain as "In progress". In either case, IANA shall notify the group developing the package of the outcome of the status update. If the IANA Expert responds to IANA's update notification with an approval indication, IANA shall update the status to "Final". If the ITU-T responds that the package has not been reviewed, or was deemed unsuitable, IANA shall alter the status back to "IP". In either case, IANA shall notify the developing group of the update. A package shall not be set to status "Final" without the express approval of the IANA Expert. 3. Formal Syntax The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) as described in RFC-4234 [RFC4234]. Text encoded PackageIDs shall conform to the "PackageName" encoding in H.248.1 [H248Amm1] Annex B. Repeated below for convienience: PackageName = NAME NAME = ALPHA *63(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_") Note: A digit is not allowed as the first character of a package name. 4. Security Considerations Updating the IANA H.248/MEGACO package registration procedures has no additional security implications. Security for the H.248/MEGACO protocol is discussed in H.248.1 section 10. Requestors for public packages for a particular standards development organization must be authorized by that organization to request a Package registration. 5. IANA Considerations This document describes an updated package registration procedure. RFC-2434 [RFC2434] has been considered in making the updates. This document does not alter the tabular package, error code and service change reason information at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/megaco- h248 . As such only a change to the header information on packages is required. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 5.1. Appointment of the IANA H.248/MEGACO Expert The IANA shall remain responsible for allocating the H.248/MEGACO expert. It is recommended that this person be involved in ongoing H.248/MEGACO development. As such it is recommended that identification of the IANA expert be done in consultation with the ITU-T Study Group/Question responsible for the H.248 sub-series of Recommendations. Q.3/16 at the time of writing. 5.2. New IANA Package Registration Text The IANA will assign a serial number to each package meeting the conditions of registration (except for an update of an existing package, which retains the serial number of the package it is updating), in consecutive order of registration. The following considerations shall be met to register a package with the IANA: 1) A unique string name, unique serial number and version number is registered for each package. The string name is used as the PackageID for text encoding. The serial number is used as the PackageID for binary encoding. Public packages MUST be given serial numbers in the range 0x0001 to 0x7fff. Private packages MUST be given serial numbers in the range 0x8000 to 0xffff. Serial number 0 is reserved. The unique string name and unique serial number may be requested by the package requestor or assigned by the IANA. 2) The package requestor shall provide a contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall be specified. The contact information shall be updated by the defining organization as necessary. 3) The package requestor shall provide a reference to a document that describes the package, which should be public: a) The document shall specify the version of the package that it describes. b) If the document is public, it should be located on a public web server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be returned. c)If the document is not public, it must be made available for review at the time of the application. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 4) The IANA shall ensure that packages registered by other than recognized standards bodies shall have a minimum package name length of 8 characters. 5) The IANA shall ensure that package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all other conditions are met. If the above five criteria are met then the IANA shall register the following information in the registry as described below: 1. Binary ID (or serial number) 2. Text ID - See RFCXXXX (Editor's note please insert the ID of this document) section 3 for the syntax. 3. Package version 4. Extension information - Binary ID and package version 5. Status* - IP ("In Progress") or Final. 6. Package name, Reference and Contact information Status - "In Progress" indicates that the package has not been fully reviewed and approved therefore may contain errors or may not be consistent with H.248 principles. "Final" indicates that the Package has been reviewed and approved and is stable. The documenting text does not have to be publicly available at the time of the registration request, however the text shall be provided available for review at the time of application. IANA shall register new packages with a status of "IP". Package requestors are encouraged to request registration as early as practicable in the design process, to reserve a binary ID. Binary IDs shall be published in the document defining the package. Package requestors for non-private packages under development shall send the package text to IANA. This should occur as soon as practicable after the rough draft of the definition is completed and at least before the package is approved in order to ensure the package is consistent with H.248 methodologies and package design principles. The IANA shall forward the Package to the IANA Expert for review. During the review the input package will be compared to the Package template for completeness, as well as being compared against protocol syntax and procedures. It will be compared against existing work to see that it doesn't duplicate existing functionality. The Expert reviewer would then work towards a resolution of any issues Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 with the Package requestor. The IANA Expert may complete the review in consultation with other H.248 experts (i.e. Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16). If the package is deemed suitable, the IANA Expert shall issue a statement indicating approval, copied to IANA. H.248.1 Amendment 1 [H248Amm1] section 14 and RFCxxxx (Editor's note:a reference to this document) section 2.contain details of this review procedure IANA will maintain the currency and public availability of the tabulation of public and private packages. Packages will be listed in increasing order of serial number. Updates to packages will be listed in increasing order of version number. 6. Acknowledgments This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. [H248Amm1] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control protocol: Version 3", Amendment 1 to ITU-T Recommendation H.248.1, July 2007. 7.2. Informative References [obsol3525] Taylor, T., "Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic", draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01.txt, May 2007. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP26, RFC 2434, October 1998. Author's Addresses Christian Groves NTEC Australia Newport, Victoria Australia Email: Christian.Groves@nteczone.com Yangbo Lin Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Shenzhen, Guangdong P. R. China Email: linyangbo@huawei.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures September 2007 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Groves Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 11]