-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31. maj 2006
15:04
To: Gray, Eric
Cc: Peter Arberg; Vince Mammoliti; Gen-ART@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt
Gray, Eric wrote:
==============================================================
=========
First, while I have to agree the three references listed as
Informative
are what I would imagine most people could agree to be just
that, it is
probable that IANA cannot create the registries indicated
until these
references are published, and possible that IANA will not
want this to
be published until they can create the corresponding
registries. This
means that these references are essentially Normative in
their effect
on publication of this draft.
Is IANA going to be willing to allow publication of this
document as a
BCP without first creating the registries? Can IANA create
a registry
with references to WIP?
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Indeed you have uncovered a couple of bugs here, Thanks Eric.
I went to check up on these three references. The [BERRY] reference
is for a draft that was actually approved by the IESG back in Jan,
but seems to have popped out of the RFC Editor's queue shortly
after. I had not noticed and am following up.
The [ARBERG] reference was just approved days ago, I assume it is
advancing normally. Michelle (IANA) specifically acknowledged the
IANA considerations section (which provides a cross-reference to
the iana document) when this happened last week.
With respect to the [CARREL] reference (PADN and PADM), no one has
asked me to publish this, and I am not aware of its advancement.
The values are FCFS, so technically a draft is not needed, but it
would be good to know if anyone is going to advance this or not.
Perhaps it should not be in the initial list? Authors, do we know
if this is implemented and in use?
Thanks,
- Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Draft Peter
Arberg
Redback
Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice Expiration Date: August
2006 Vince Mammoliti
Cisco
Systems
February
2006
IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE)
draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes the IANA considerations for the PPP over
Ethernet (PPPoE) protocol.
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt February
2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................... 2
1.1 Terminology.............................................. 2
1.2 Specification of Requirements............................ 2
2. IANA Considerations........................................ 3
2.1 Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values............... 3
2.2 Reserved PPPoE TAG Values................................ 3
2.3 Registration Policies for PPPoE Code fields.............. 4
2.4 Reserved PPPoE Code fields............................... 4
3. Security Considerations.................................... 4
4. References................................................. 5
4.1 Normative References..................................... 5
4.2 Informative References................................... 5
Author's Address........................................... 5
Full Copyright Statement................................... 6
Intellectual Property Statement............................ 6
1. Introduction
This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding the registration of values related to
the PPP over Ethernet Protocol (PPPoE), defined in [RFC2516], in
accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. It also reserves PPPoE TAG
values as well as PPPoE packet Code fields which are or have been
in use on the Internet.
1.1 Terminology
The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in
BCP 26: "name space", "registration".
The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
BCP 26: "First Come First Served".
1.2 Specification of Requirements
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].
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt February
2006
2. IANA Considerations
The PPPoE protocol as defined in [RFC2516] defines two name
spaces that requires registration, the PPPoE TAG and the PPPoE
Code field.
2.1 Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values
IANA shall set up a registry of "PPPoE TAG Values". These are
16-bit values. PPPoE TAG values already in use are specified
as reserved in this document, all other TAG values between 0 and
65535 are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First
Served" policy defined in [RFC2434].
A TAG-Name, and a point of contact or a specification
description (if any exists) MUST be provided for any assignment
from this registry."
2.2 Reserved PPPoE TAG Values
TAG Value TAG Name Reference
-------------- ------------------------- ---------
0 0x0000 End-Of-List [RFC2516]
257 0x0101 Service-Name [RFC2516]
258 0x0102 AC-Name [RFC2516]
259 0x0103 Host-Uniq [RFC2516]
260 0x0104 AC-Cookie [RFC2516]
261 0x0105 Vendor-Specific [RFC2516]
262 0x0106 Credits [BERRY]
263 0x0107 Metrics [BERRY]
264 0x0108 Sequence Number [BERRY]
272 0x0110 Relay-Session-Id [RFC2516]
273 0x0111 HURL [CARREL]
274 0x0112 MOTM [CARREL]
288 0x0120 PPP-Max-Payload [ARBERG]
289 0x0121 IP_Route_Add [CARREL]
513 0x0201 Service-Name-Error [RFC2516]
514 0x0202 AC-System-Error [RFC2516]
515 0x0203 Generic-Error [RFC2516]
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt February
2006
2.3 Registration Policies for PPPoE Code fields
IANA shall set up a registry of PPPoE Active Discovery Code
fields. These are 8-bit values. PPPoE Code fields already in use
are specified as reserved in this document, all other Code
values between 0 and 255 are to be assigned by IANA, using
the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434].
A PPPoE Active Discovery packet name and a point of contact or a
specification description (if any exists) MUST be provided for
any assignment from this registry."
2.4 Reserved PPPoE Code fields
Code Value PPPoE Packet Name Reference
---------- --------------------------------------- ---------
0 0x00 PPP Session Stage [RFC2516]
7 0x07 PADO, Offer [RFC2516]
9 0x09 PADI, Initiation [RFC2516]
10 0x0a PADG, Session-Grant [BERRY]
11 0x0b PADC, Session-Credit Response [BERRY]
12 0x0c PADQ, Quality [BERRY]
25 0x19 PADR, Request [RFC2516]
101 0x65 PADS, Session-confirmation [RFC2516]
167 0xa7 PADT, Terminate [RFC2516]
211 0xd3 PADM, Message [CARREL]
212 0xd4 PADN, Network [CARREL]
3. Security Considerations
This document focuses on IANA considerations for the PPPoE
protocol, and as such should help remove the possibility for the
same PPPoE
code field and PPPoE TAG value being used for different
functionalities.
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt February
2006
4. References
4.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
2434, October 1998.
[RFC2516] Mamakos L., Lidl K., Evarts J., Carrel D., Simone
D., Wheeler R., "A Method for Transmitting PPP
Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999
4.2 Informative References
[CARREL] Carrel D., Simone D., Ho C., Stoner T.,
"Extensions to a Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)", work in progress.
[BERRY] Berry B., Holgate H., "PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)
Extensions for Credit Flow and Link Metrics",
work in progress.
[ARBERG] Arberg P., Kourkouzelis D., Duckett M., Anschutz
T., Moisand J., "Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater
than 1492 in PPPoE", work in progress.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Arberg Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vince Mammoliti
Cisco Systems, Inc.
181 Bay Street, Suite 3400
Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T3
Canada
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt February
2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the
use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Arberg Expires August 2006
[Page 6]
