Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. McFadden
Request for Comments:
6254 ICANN
Obsoletes:
2754 May 2011
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
Request to Move
RFC 2754 to Historic Status
Abstract
RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it
was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally
sign them. The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in
software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System.
In practice, this was never done on the public Internet. This
document requests that
RFC 2754 be moved to Historic status.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6254.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Details .........................................................2
3. Terminology .....................................................3
4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
5. Security Considerations .........................................3
6. Acknowledgments .................................................3
7. Informative Reference ...........................................3
1. Introduction
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols that
have been designed, created, or are maintained by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF).
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754] requests that the
IANA create a repository of Routing Policy Specification Language
(RPSL) objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the
initial objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA
makes an address assignment it also create new objects as needed and
sign them as well. In practice, this was never done in the public
Internet. During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration
activities in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was
identified as one of those that had not been completed after
publication of the RFC.
This document obsoletes
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754], recommends that it be
moved to Historic status, and directs IANA not to move forward with
the IANA actions in that RFC.
2. Details
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754] requests that the IANA create a repository of RPSL
objects and digitally sign them. The RFC identifies the initial
objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
as well.
During a review of RFCs in 2009, it became apparent that the IANA
actions requested in
RFC 2754 were never done. In the intervening
time, another technology appears to be taking the role once
envisioned for Distributed RPSL. Both an architecture and
infrastructure now exist for secure routing using Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) technologies. As an example, the semantics of
a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) -- an application of the RPKI --
to validate the origination of routes has been standardized by
the IETF.
Implementation of the IANA actions in
RFC 2754 would now require
significant implementation complexity. In the face of alternative
technology, and given that the requested actions have not been
implemented in the public Internet, it is proposed to reclassify
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754] as Historic and to direct the IANA not to pursue
or implement the IANA requests in that document.
3. Terminology
The word "allocation" designates a block of addresses managed by a
registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations. The
word "assignment" designates a block of addresses, or a single
address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or
set of networks.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the IANA actions
requested in
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754].
5. Security Considerations
The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took
place in the public Internet. Moving
RFC 2754 [
RFC2754] to Historic
status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet.
6. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Alfred Hoenes, Russ Housley, Leo
Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu, Michelle Cotton,
and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments.
7. Informative Reference
[
RFC2754] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, "RPS
IANA Issues",
RFC 2754, January 2000.
Author's Address
Mark McFadden
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
United States
Phone: +1-608-628-2674
EMail: mark.mcfadden@icann.org
URI:
http://www.iana.org