INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson, Ed. Geoff Huston, Ed. Olaf M. Kolkman, Ed. Internet Architecture Board Expires: August 2010 February 4, 2010 Intended Status: Best Current Practice Defining the Role and Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 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/1id-abstracts.html McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright Notice Copyright (C) (2010) The IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Abstract Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are passed within protocols. To ensure consistent interpretation of these values by independent implementations, the values and associated semantic intent must be uniquely defined. The IETF uses registry functions to record assigned protocol parameter values and their associated semantic intent. For each IETF protocol parameter it is current practice for the IETF to delegate the role of protocol parameter registry operator to a nominated entity. This document provides a description of and the requirements for these delegated functions. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 Table of Contents 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Roles and Responsibilities concerning IETF Proto- col Registries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. IAB Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. IESG Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4. Role of the IETF Trust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.5. Role of the IAOC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Appendix A: Considerations on the term IANA. . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Appendix B: IANA registries in context. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Definition. . . . . . . . 14 10.2. Publication of Protocol Parameter Registry Assignments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.3. The Procedures related to IETF Protocol Parameter Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.4. Registries for IETF Protocol Parameters. . . . . . . . . . 16 10.5. Current IETF Protocol Parameter Assignments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Appendix C: IAB Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 McPherson, Huston, Kolkman [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 1. Overview Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined values that are exchanged within protocols. To ensure consistent interpretation of these values by independent implementations, the values and their semantic intent must be uniquely defined. The IETF uses registries to record each of the possible values of a protocol parameter and their associated semantic intent. These registries, their registration policy, and the layout of their content are defined in the "IANA Considerations" sections of IETF documents. The organizational separation between the IETF and its registry operator(s) is one that appears to be a relatively unique arrangement in the context of standards development organizations (SDOs), and similar arrangements of structural separation are not generally used by SDOs. Other SDOs that undertake a similar protocol parameter registration function generally do so as part of their secretariat service functions or their equivalent, thereby avoiding the overhead of detailed coordination of activity across multiple distinct organizations. However, this structural separation of roles exists within several places in the IETF framework (e.g., to include the RFC Editor function). The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry operator. This responsibility includes the selection and management of the protocol parameter registry operator(s), as well as management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines for parameter allocation. As with other SDO's, the IETF asserts full authority over the management of all the IETF protocol parameters. This document describes the function of these registries as they apply to individual protocol parameters defined by the IETF Internet Standards Process [RFC 2026] as to allow for an orderly implementation by the IAOC under guidance from the IAB. Below we provide a description of the requirement for these delegated functions which the IETF has historically referred to as the IANA function. 2. Roles and Responsibilities concerning IETF Protocol Registries It has been the longstanding practice of the IETF to outsource the management and implementation of some important functions (e.g., [RFC McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2. [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 5620]). The protocol parameter registry function falls into this category of outsourced function, and what follows here is a comprehensive and normative description of the roles and responsibility with respect to the registration of IETF protocol parameters. Specifically, this document describes the operation and role of a delegated IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, to be selected and administered by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) [RFC 4071]. While there is generally a single Protocol Parameter Registry Operator, additional Operators may be selected to implement specific registries. This document also describes the roles of other bodies that interact with related bodies with IETF protocol parameter registry operators. 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 ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority in a coordinated and mechanical manner. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by a delegated Protocol Parameter Registry operator. For any particular protocol parameter there is a single delegated registry operator. In the case of IP addresses and AS numbers, the IANA function resides at the root of the number space, while a subsequent allocation hierarchy exists below IANA, and the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) make further allocations of those resources using policies established through the RIRs' bottom-up policy development process. 2.1. Protocol Parameter Registry Operator Role The IETF Protocol Parameter registry function is undertaken under the auspices of the Internet Architecture Board. The roles of a Protocol Parameter registry operator are as follows: o Review and Advise * A registry operator may be requested to review Internet-Drafts that are being considered by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), with the objective of McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 offering advice to the IESG regarding the need for an "IANA Considerations" section, whether such a section, when required, is clear in terms of direction to the registry operator, and whether the section is consistent with the current published registry operator guidelines. o Registry * To operate a registry of protocol parameter assignments. * The delegated registry operator registers values for Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards, Best Current Practice documents, and other RFCs that require protocol parameter assignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity, the registry operator will continue to assign and register only those protocol parameters that have already been delegated to the operator, following past and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise directed in terms of operating practice by the IESG. * For each protocol parameter, the associated registry includes: + a reference to the RFC document that describes the parameter and the associated "IANA Considerations" concerning the parameter, and + for each registration of a protocol parameter value, the source of the registration and the date of the registration, if the date of registration is known. * If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, the registry operator will seek and follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the registry operator. * The registry operator will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and procedures over time, which the registry operator will adopt when so instructed by the IESG. * Each protocol parameter registry operates as a public registry, and the contents of the registry are openly available to the public, on-line and free of charge. * The registry operator assigns protocol parameter values in accordance with the policy associated with the protocol McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 parameter. Some policies are listed in [RFC 5226]. o Mailing Lists * The registry operator maintains public mailing lists as specified in IANA Considerations [RFC 5226]. Such lists are designated for the purpose of review of assignment proposals in conjunction with a designated expert review function. In addition, each protocol parameter registry operator should maintain a mailing list that enables the registry staff of the registry operator to be contacted by email. For example, iana@iana.org currently provides this function for IANA. o Liaison Activity * The registry operator will nominate a liaison point of contact. The registry operator, though this liaison, may be requested to provide advice to the IESG on IETF protocol parameters as well as the IANA Considerations section of Internet-Drafts that are being reviewed for publication as an RFC. Where appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise the registry operator. o Reporting * The registry operator will submit periodic reports to the IAB concerning the operational performance of the registry function. As an example of the requirements for such reports the reader is referred to a supplement to the MoU outlined in [RFC 2860] that was established by the IASA [RFC 4071] and provides service level agreement (SLA) guidelines under which the protocol parameter registry, as implemented by ICANN, must operate. * At the request of the chair of the IETF, IAB, or IAOC the registry operator will undertake periodic reports to the IETF Plenary concerning the status of the registry function. * The registry operator will publish an annual report describing the status of the function and a summary of performance indicators. o Intellectual Property Rights and the Registry Operator * All assigned values are to be published and made available free of any charges and free of any constraints relating to further redistribution, with the caveat that the assignment information may not be modified in any redistributed copy. * Any intellectual property rights of the IETF Protocol Parameter McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.1. [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 assignment information, including the IETF Protocol Parameter registry and its contents, are to be held by the IETF Trust [RFC 4748], and all IETF Protocol Parameter registry publications relating to assignment information are to be published under the terms of Section 10 of [RFC 2026], and are to include the copyright notice as documented in Section 10.4 (C) of [RFC 2026]. 2.2. IAB Role An operator of an IETF Protocol Parameter registry undertakes the role as a delegated function under the authority of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). The IAB has the responsibility to review the current description of the registry function on a schedule of its own choosing. The IAB shall direct the registry operator to adopt amendments relating to its role and mode of operation of the registry according to the best interests of the IETF. The IAB has the responsibility to appoint an organization to undertake the delegated functions of the Protocol Parameter registry operator for each IETF protocol parameter. Specifically, the IAB defines the role and requirements for the desired functions (e.g., as with [RFC 5620]), and in consultation with the IAB, the IAOC is responsible for identifying potential vendors and managing aspects of the relationships with that vendor. To be clear, the IAB is in the deciding role (e.g., for appointment and termination), but must work in close consultation with the IAOC. The IAB has the responsibility to determine the terms and conditions of this delegated role. Such terms and conditions should ensure that the registry operates in a manner that fully conforms to the functions described in this document. In addition, such terms and conditions must not restrict the rights and interests of the IETF with respect to the registry content and maintenance. 2.3. IESG Role The IESG is responsible for the technical direction of the IETF Protocol Parameter registries and maintaining the policies by which such technical directions are given (e.g., see Appendix B). Technical direction itself is provided through the adoption of IETF McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.3. [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 RFC documents within the "IANA Considerations" section of such documents, or as stand-alone "IANA Considerations" RFC documents. The IESG shall verify that Internet-Drafts that are offered for publication as IETF-stream RFCs [RFC 4844] include IANA Considerations sections when needed, and that IANA Considerations sections conform to the current published guidelines. For other RFC streams, the respective approval bodies for those streams are responsible for verifying tha the documents include IANA consideration when necessary, and that those IANA considerations conform to the current published guidelines. Since technical assessment is not a responsibility of the registry operator, the IESG, as part of providing the technical direction, is responsible for identifying the technical experts that are required to, where appropriate, review registration requests or resolve open technical questions that relate to the registration of parameters. The IESG will at its discretion organize the liaison activities with the registry operator's liaison point of contact; as to facilitate clear communications and effective operation of the registry function. 2.4. Role of the IETF Trust Any intellectual property rights of IETF Protocol Parameter assignment information, including the registry and its contents, and all registry publications, are to be held by the IETF Trust on behalf of the IETF. The IETF Trust [RFC 4748] was formed to act as the administrative custodian of all copyrights and other intellectual property rights relating to the IETF Standards Process, a function that had previously been performed by ISOC and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). 2.5. Role of the IAOC In consultation with the IAB, the IAOC is responsible for identifying a potential vendor based on IAB consultation, and managing the various aspects of the relationships with that vendor. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 2.5. [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 In addition, the IAOC has the responsibility to ensure long-term availability and stability across all such registries and their contents. This responsibility is of particular significance in the event that a relation with a protocol parameter registry operator is terminated. 3. Miscellaneous In it's current incarnation, the IANA function operator also maintains registries from other SDOs that are of interest to the IETF community, or add new codepoints to IETF protocols. Some registries are also specified and used by ICANN itself. Some example registries include "NLPIDs of Interest", "IEEE 802 Numbers", "Address Family Numbers", and "Repository of IDN Practices". While these registries are not specified or expressly requested on behalf of the IETF, and their contents are not captive to express oversight by the IETF, they are relevant to IETF work. 4. Acknowledgements This document is adapted from [RFC 5226], and has been modified to include explicit reference to Intellectual Property Rights, and the roles of the IAB and IESG in relation to the IETF Protocol Parameter registry function. The Internet Architecture Board acknowledges the assistance provided by reviewers of earlier drafts of this document, including Scott Bradner, Leslie Daigle and Thomas Narten. 5. Security Considerations This document does not propose any new protocols, and does not involve any security considerations. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 5. [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 6. IANA Considerations This document requires no direct IANA actions. 7. References 7.1. Normative References 7.2. Informative References [RFC 1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, STD 2, October 1994. [RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996. [RFC 2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", RFC 2780, BCP 37, March 2000. [RFC 2850] Carpenter, B., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board", RFC 2850, BCP 39, May 2000. [RFC 2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. [RFC 2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP Options and Message Types", RFC 2939, BCP 43, September 2000. [RFC 2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", RFC 2978, BCP 19, October 2000. [RFC 3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 7.2. [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 [RFC 4071] Austein, R., Wijnen, B., "Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", RFC 4071, April 2005. [RFC 4748] Bradner, S., "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust", RFC 4748, BCP 78, October 2006. [RFC 4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and IAB, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. [RFC 5226] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC 5620] Kolkman, O., IAB, "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", RFC 5620, August 2009. [IANA] Reynolds, J., "IANA Protocol Numbers and Assignment Services", October 1994, . [IAOC_SUPP] ICANN/IANA-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement [CORR] Dyson, E., "Correspondence from Esther Dyson, Interim Chairman, ICANN to Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter and Fred Baker of the IETF", February 1999, . [ENUM_INSTR] IAB, "ENUM LIAISON ON IAB INSTRUCTIONS TO RIPE-NCC", September 2002, . [RIPE ENUM] RIPE NCC, "ENUM Registry", September 2002, . 8. Authors' Addresses McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 8. [Page 12] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 Danny McPherson, Editor Arbor Networks, Inc. Email: danny@arbor.net Geoff Huston, Editor APNIC Email: gih@apnic.net Olaf M. Kolkman, Editor NLnet Labs Email: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Internet Architecture Board Email: iab@iab.org 9. Appendix A: Considerations on the term IANA The term "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)" has been used historically in different contexts. Specifically: 1) "IANA" has is commonly referred to as the set of protocol, DNS, and Address registry functions operated by ICANN: It is noted that there is current general use of the term "IANA" or "IANA function" to refer specifically to the set of registries operated by ICANN funded through a contract [DoC_IANA] between ICANN and the U.S. Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2) Within the IETF context "IANA" has been referred to as the set of registry operators of the IETF protocol parameters: At the time of the writing this document (December 2009) the operation of the majority of the protocol parameter registries are delegated to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Not all IETF protocol parameter registries are delegated to ICANN, and at present the operation of the 'e164.arpa' registry has been delegated to the RIPE Network Coordination Center (RIPE NCC) [ENUM_INSTR]. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 9. [Page 13] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 3) Additionally, and also within IETF context, "IANA" has been referred to as the entire set of IETF protocol parameter registries: The IETF documents continue to use the term "IANA Considerations" when referring to specific functions to be performed with respect to a protocol parameter registry [RFC 5226], it is noted that the use of the term 'IANA' in this context does not necessarily imply the delegation of the parameter registry operation to the function operated by ICANN. In addition to the multiple contexts of the use of the term "IANA", the structure and association of the U.S. Government's contractual relationship with ICANN over the performance of a protocol parameter registry operation that is commonly known as the "IANA" role, is a source of some common confusion regarding the question as to who maintains ultimate authority over the protocol parameter registries themselves. ICANN undertakes these "mechanical" tasks on behalf of the IETF at the discretion of the IAB, as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding [RFC 2860] between the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) and ICANN, and in supplements [IAOC_SUPP] provided thereafter. 10. Appendix B: IANA registries in context 10.1. IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Definition Using the term 'IANA' in the sense of the entire set of IETF protocol parameter registries, the Internet Standards document, STD 2 [RFC 1700], published in October 1994, defined the role of the IANA as follows: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the central coordinator for the assignment of unique parameter values for Internet protocols. The IANA is chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Federal Network Council (FNC) to act as the clearinghouse to assign and coordinate the use of numerous Internet protocol parameters. The Internet protocol suite, as defined by the Internet McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.1. [Page 14] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its steering group (the IESG), contains numerous parameters, such as Internet protocol addresses, domain names, autonomous system numbers (used in some routing protocols), protocol numbers, port numbers, management information base object identifiers, including private enterprise numbers, and many others. The common use of the Internet protocols by the Internet community requires that the particular values used in these parameter fields be assigned uniquely. It is the task of the IANA to make those unique assignments as requested and to maintain a registry of the currently assigned values [RFC 1700]. Again using the term 'IANA' in the sense of the entire set of IETF protocol parameter registries, the definition of the protocol parameter registry role is provided in [RFC 5226]: 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 transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This text appears to confuse two of the three (1 and 3) contexts presented in Appendix A with which the "IANA" term is used. 10.2. Publication of Protocol Parameter Registry Assignments Currently there are two registry operators that publicize protocol parameter registry assignments: the IANA registry as operated by ICANN, and the RIPE NCC. The current mode of publication of protocol parameter registry assignments undertaken within registries whose operation is currently delegated to ICANN is described in the Informational Document [RFC 3232], published in January 2002: From November 1977 through October 1994, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) periodically published tables of the Internet protocol parameter assignments in RFCs entitled, "Assigned Numbers". The most current of these McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.2. [Page 15] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 Assigned Numbers RFCs had Standard status and carried the designation: STD 2. At this time, the latest STD 2 is RFC 1700. Since 1994, this sequence of RFCs have been replaced by an online database accessible through a web page (currently, www.iana.org). The purpose of the present RFC is to note this fact and to officially obsolete RFC 1700, whose status changes to Historic. RFC 1700 is obsolete, and its values are incomplete and in some cases may be wrong [RFC 3232]. The mode of publication of the e164.arpa protocol parameter registry operated by the RIPE NCC is documented in reference [RIPE ENUM]. 10.3. The Procedures related to IETF Protocol Parameter Management IETF Protocol Parameter registry actions are defined through the inclusion of an "IANA Considerations" section in IESG-approved RFC documents, as described in [RFC 5226]. Within these considerations the IETF defines the policies through which a registry operator manages assignments within the registry. There are also RFCs that specifically address IETF protocol parameter considerations for particular protocols, such as [RFC 2780], [RFC 2939], and [RFC 2978]. 10.4. Registries for IETF Protocol Parameters As documented in the IAB Charter [RFC 2850], the role of the IAB includes responsibility for the IETF Protocol Parameter registration function (referred to in the charter as 'IANA'). The IAB, acting on behalf of the IETF, approves the appointment of an organization to act as a protocol parameter registry operator on behalf of the IETF, and also approves the terms and conditions of this delegation of this function. The technical direction of the IETF Protocol Parameter registry function is provided by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) [RFC 2850]. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 10.4. [Page 16] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 10.5. Current IETF Protocol Parameter Assignments The list of current IETF protocol parameters for which parameter value assignments are registered within registries whose operation is currently delegated to ICANN is listed in reference [IANA]. In addition there is the e164.arpa registry function, which is listed in reference [RIPE ENUM]. As provided in the list contained in [IANA], those protocol parameter registries that refer to registrations related to the allocation of public unicast IPv4 addresses, public unicast IPv6 addresses, public use Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) and the top level delegations within the Domain Name System, have associated registration mechanisms that have been delegated to the IANA function operated under the auspices of ICANN, as defined in [RFC 2860]. In these cases other bodies are responsible for the development of policies to manage the registrations of allocations performed as part of this aspect of the registration function. Registrations that refer to reservations (e.g., IP address blocks for documentation purposes or ASNs defined for documentation purposes) and all other use cases within those registries must be performed under the exclusive direction of the IETF. 11. Appendix C: IAB Members Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was published were: Marcelo Bagnulo Gonzalo Camarillo Stuart Cheshire Vijay Gill Russ Housley John Klensin Olaf Kolkman Gregory Lebovitz Andrew Malis Danny McPherson McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 11. [Page 17] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: August 2010 February 2010 David Oran Jon Peterson Dave Thaler Copyright Statement Copyright (C) (2010) The IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. McPherson, Huston, Kolkman Section 11. [Page 18]