Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
IANA is directed not to carry out the actions requested in RFC 2754.
McFadden, M., "Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status", RFC 6254, DOI 10.17487/RFC6254, May 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6254>.
@misc{rfc6254,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6254,
howpublished = {RFC 6254},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6254},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6254},
author = {M. McFadden},
title = {{Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 2011,
month = may,
} RFC text
Contents
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
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The Earlier IANA Request
RFC 2754 requested that IANA create a repository of Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) objects and digitally sign them. It also asked IANA to create and sign inetnum and as-block objects as needed for each address assignment.
The purpose was to distribute an IANA-held public key in software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System. The RFC 6254 introduction reports that this was never done on the public Internet.
The old RFC asked IANA to create and sign routing records when it assigned addresses. The memo reports that this did not happen on the public Internet.
§2Why the Request Was Retired
A review of IANA protocol-registration activities found that the requested actions had not been completed. The memo says an architecture and infrastructure for secure routing using Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) technologies now exist.
It also says implementing the RFC 2754 actions would require significant complexity in light of the alternative technology. RFC 6254 therefore recommends Historic status for RFC 2754 and directs IANA not to implement its requests.
The memo says secure-routing technology based on RPKI now exists. It concludes that carrying out the old request would add substantial complexity.
§3Address Terms and IANA Direction
The memo defines an allocation as an address block managed by a registry for making assignments and allocations. An assignment is a block or single address registered to an end user for use on a network or networks.
IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the actions requested in RFC 2754. Since the intended signatures never took place on the public Internet, moving RFC 2754 to Historic is said to have no known impact on Internet security.
An allocation is a block managed by a registry; an assignment is an address registered to an end user. IANA is told not to carry out the old signing request.