< draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana   rfc3438.txt 
Network Working Group W. M. Townsley Network Working Group W. Townsley
Internet-Draft cisco Systems Request for Comments: 3438 Cisco Systems
<draft-ietf-l2tpext-rfc2661-iana-00.txt> April 2002 BCP: 68 December 2002
Category: Best Current Practice
L2TP IANA Considerations Update Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes updates to the IANA considerations for the This document describes updates to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Layer Two Tunneling Protocol. Authority (IANA) considerations for the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
(L2TP).
Contents
Status of this Memo.......................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................. 2
2. IANA Considerations...................................... 2
3. Normative References..................................... 4
4. Security Considerations.................................. 4
5. Acknowledgements......................................... 4 Table of Contents
6. Author's Address......................................... 4 1. Introduction............................................. 1
1.1 Terminology........................................... 2
2. IANA Considerations...................................... 2
2.1 Control Message AVPs.................................. 3
2.2 Message Type AVP Values............................... 3
2.3 Result Code AVP Values................................ 3
2.4 Remaining Values...................................... 3
3. Normative References..................................... 3
4. Security Considerations.................................. 4
5. Acknowledgements......................................... 4
6. Author's Address......................................... 4
7. Full Copyright Statement................................. 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Authority (IANA) regarding the registration of values related to the
Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in [RFC2661], in Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in [RFC2661], in
accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1 Terminology
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. These words are often capitalized. 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 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in
26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration". BCP 26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration".
The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review", BCP 26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
"Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action". "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
L2TP [RFC2661] defines a number of "magic" numbers to be maintained L2TP [RFC2661] defines a number of "magic" numbers to be maintained
by the IANA. This section updates the criteria to be used by the by the IANA. This section updates the criteria to be used by the
IANA to assign additional numbers in each of these lists. IANA to assign additional numbers in each of these lists.
Each of the values identified in this document which require a Each of the values identified in this document that require a
registration criteria update are currently maintained by IANA and registration criteria update are currently maintained by IANA and
have a range of values from 0 to 65 535, of which a very small number have a range of values from 0 to 65 535, of which a very small number
have been allocated (the maximum number allocated within any one have been allocated (the maximum number allocated within any one
range is 46) [IANA-L2TP]. Given the nature of these values, it is not range is 46) [L2TP-IANA]. Given the nature of these values, it is
expected that any will ever run into a resource allocation problem if not expected that any will ever run into a resource allocation
registration allocation requirements are relaxed from their current problem if registration allocation requirements are relaxed from
state. their current state.
The recommended criteria changes for IANA registration is listed in The recommended criteria changes for IANA registration are listed in
the following sections. In one case, the registration criteria is the following sections. In one case, the registration criteria is
currently defined as First Come First Served and should be made more currently defined as First Come First Served and should be made more
strict, others are defined as IETF Consensus and need to be relaxed. strict, others are defined as IETF Consensus and need to be relaxed.
The relaxation from IETF Consensus is motivated by specific cases The relaxation from IETF Consensus is motivated by specific cases in
where values that were never intended to be vendor-specific have had which values that were never intended to be vendor-specific have had
to enter early field trials or be released in generally available to enter early field trials or be released in generally available
products with vendor-specific values while awaiting documents to be products with vendor-specific values while awaiting documents to be
formalized. In most cases this results in products that have to formalized. In most cases, this results in products that have to
support both the vendor-specific value and IETF value indefinitely. support both the vendor-specific value and IETF value indefinitely.
For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the
Designated Expert. Designated Expert.
For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the l2tpext For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the Designated
mailing list should be consulted. Expert should consult relevant WGs as appropriate (e.g., the l2tpext
WG at the time of this writing).
The basic guideline for the Expert Review process will be to approve The basic guideline for the Expert Review process will be to approve
assignment of a value only if there is a document being advanced the assignment of a value only if there is a document being advanced
which clearly defines the values to be assigned, and there is active that clearly defines the values to be assigned, and there is active
implementation development (perhaps entering early field or implementation development (perhaps entering early field or
interoperability trails, requiring assigned values to proceed without interoperability trails, requiring assigned values to proceed without
having to resort to a chosen vendor-specific method). having to resort to a chosen vendor-specific method).
2.1. Control Message AVPs 2.1 Control Message AVPs
IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Control Message Attribute Value IANA manages the "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs" [L2TP-IANA]
Pairs" [IANAL2TP], of which 0 - 46 have been assigned. The criteria name space, of which 0 - 46 have been assigned. The criteria for
assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should be
assigned upon Expert Review.
2.2 Message Type AVP Values
IANA manages the "Message Type AVP (Attribute Type 0) Values" [L2TP-
IANA] name space, of which 0 - 16 have been assigned. The criteria
for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should
be assigned upon Expert Review. be assigned upon Expert Review.
2.2. Message Type AVP Values 2.3 Result Code AVP Values
IANA maintains a list of 0 to 65 535 "Message Type AVP (Attribute
Type 0) Values" [IANA-L2TP], of which 0 - 16 have been assigned. The
criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further
values should be assigned upon Expert Review.
2.3. Result Code AVP Values
IANA maintains a list of "Result Code values for the StopCCN IANA maintains a list of "Result Code values for the StopCCN
message," "Result Code values for the CDN message," and "General message," "Result Code values for the CDN message," and "General
Error Codes" [IANAL2TP]. The criteria for Error Code assignment was Error Codes" [L2TP-IANA]. The criteria for Error Code assignment was
originally First Come First Served, and the criteria for CDN and originally First Come First Served, and the criteria for CDN and
StopCCN Result Codes was originally IETF Consensus. Further values StopCCN Result Codes were originally IETF Consensus. Further values
for all Result and Error codes should be assigned upon Expert Review. for all Result and Error codes should be assigned upon Expert Review.
2.4. Remaining Values 2.4 Remaining Values
All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned
specifically in this document remain as is. specifically in this document remain unchanged.
3. Normative References 3. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA [RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2661] Townsley W., et al., "Layer Two Tunneling Layer Two Tunneling [RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn,
Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661, August 1999. G. and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661, August 1999.
[L2TPIANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two [L2TP-IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661", Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security
considerations. considerations.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Some of this text and much of the format of this document was taken Some of this text and much of the format of this document was taken
from an Internet draft on EAP IANA Considerations authored by Bernard from an internet document on EAP IANA Considerations authored by
Aboba. Bernard Aboba.
6. Author's Address 6. Author's Address
W. Mark Townsley W. Mark Townsley
cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road 7025 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987 PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
[email protected]
EMail: [email protected]
7. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 81 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/