ianaplanwg-v05.txt   ianaplanwg-v06.txt 
Area: General Area: General
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko Responsible AD: Jari Arkko
Chairs: TBD Chairs: TBD
Background Background
========== ==========
The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries. Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs. section in many RFCs.
For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the For a number of years, maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The registries has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was
Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF and
time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been ICANN codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860. Over time,
documented in supplemental agreements. processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented
in supplemental agreements.
ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of ICANN has had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) to
Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and provide the IANA function, undertaken through the National
Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of
its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that 2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current
NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that role, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with
contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a
proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary
case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of arrangements. In the case of the elements of the IANA function
the existing well-documented practices. concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the
existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little new
activity will be required.
Tasks Tasks
===== =====
The WG's output is expected to be an IETF consensus document that The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the protocol document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
parameters registries operator. the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries.
Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF, The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible. minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter possible. The working group will address the implications of moving
registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF
continuation of the current arrangements. The protocol parameters registry function in a way that focuses on
working group will assume the following documents continue to be in continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will
effect: assume the following documents continue to be in effect:
- RFC 2850 - RFC 2850
- RFC 3777 and its updates - RFC 3777 and its updates
- RFC 2860 - RFC 2860
- RFC 6220 - RFC 6220
- IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 - IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
(http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
- ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
(updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) 2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)
This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
needed for the transition. Possible improvements outside that scope needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics
will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in related to IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set
substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms aside for future consideration. However, the mechanisms required to
required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
may require additional documentation or agreements. additional documentation or agreements.
Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
transition of other IANA functions affect the protocol parameter transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them. registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.
The output document of the WG need not be the complete transition Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document detailed
proposal regarding the oversight of the protocol parameters registries terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally
to be handed to the NTIA. Specifically, if that transition proposal delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will
requires documentation of some detailed terms of agreements or other not attempt to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but
details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them ready for submission as
the IAB or IAOC, the IAB or IAOC can provide those details as part of part of the final proposal.
the submission; the WG does not need to come to consensus on those
parts of the submission.
The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to
formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG. Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG.
Milestones Milestones
========== ==========
January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal
May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/