• Aucun résultat trouvé

This document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to Historic status

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "This document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to Historic status"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

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.

McFadden Informational [Page 1]

(2)

RFC 6254 RFC 2754 to Historic Status May 2011

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.

McFadden Informational [Page 2]

(3)

RFC 6254 RFC 2754 to Historic Status May 2011

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

McFadden Informational [Page 3]

Références

Documents relatifs

After a little time, less than the ’end user to server’ Round-trip time (RTT), the real end user datagram will reach the ingress side of the ESP-based router, since the

This document is a guideline for registries and registrars on registering internationalized domain names (IDNs) based on (in alphabetical order) Bosnian, Bulgarian,

If an update is for a route injected into the Babel domain by the local node (e.g., the address of a local interface, the prefix of a directly attached network, or

Specifically, this document moves RFC 1319 [MD2] to Historic status.. The reasons for taking this action

This section addresses attacks against MD4’s collisions, pre-image, and second pre-image resistance..

Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,

The AR (DHCP client and relay agent) and the DHCP server use the IA_PD Prefix option to exchange information about prefixes in much the same way as IA

In response to the Control-Request message, the network element designated the Responder sends back a Control-Response message that reflects the Command-Header with an