Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/bcp/bcp88.txt Дата изменения: Thu Jun 10 03:37:45 2004 Дата индексирования: Tue Oct 2 09:13:06 2012 Кодировка:

Network Working Group V. Schryver
Request for Comments: 3818 Rhyolite Software
BCP: 88 June 2004
Category: Best Current Practice


IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Extensions working
group (pppext) includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's
most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against
further enhancements of questionable value." In support of that
charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers
will no longer be "first come first served."

Introduction

The Point-to-Point protocol (PPP, RFC 1661 [1]) is a mature protocol
with a large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other
extensions. The main protocol as well as its extensions involve many
name spaces in which values must be assigned.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ppp-numbers contains a list of the
address spaces and their current assignments.

Historically, initial values in new name spaces have often been
chosen in the RFCs creating the name spaces. The IANA made
subsequent assignments with a "First Come First Served" policy. This
memo changes that policy for some PPP address spaces.

Most of the PPP names spaces are quiescent, but some continue to
attract proposed extensions. Extensions of PPP have been defined in
RFCs that are "Informational" and so are not subject to review.
These extensions usually require values assigned in one or more of
the PPP name spaces. Making these allocations require "IETF
Consensus" will ensure that proposals are reviewed.




Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 1]

RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004


Terminology

The terms "name space", "assigned value", and "registration" are used
here with the meanings defined in BCP 26 [2]. The policies "First
Come First Served" and "IETF Consensus" used here also have the
meanings defined in BCP 26.

IANA Considerations for PPP

IETF Consensus, usually through the Point-to-Point Protocol
Extensions working group (pppext), is required for assigning new
values in the following address spaces:

PPP DLL PROTOCOL NUMBERS
PPP LCP AND IPCP CODES
PPP LCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
PPP CCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
PPP CHAP AUTHENTICATION ALGORITHMS
PPP LCP FCS-ALTERNATIVES
PPP MULTILINK ENDPOINT DISCRIMINATOR CLASS
PPP LCP CALLBACK OPERATION FIELDS
PPP BRIDGING CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
PPP BRIDGING MAC TYPES
PPP BRIDGING SPANNING TREE
PPP IPCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
PPP IPV6CP CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
PPP IP-Compression-Protocol Types

Security Considerations

This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.

Normative References

[1] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
RFC 1661, July 1994.

[2] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.












Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 2]

RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004


Author's Address

Vernon Schryver
Rhyolite Software
2482 Lee Hill Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80302

EMail: vjs@rhyolite.com











































Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 3]

RFC 3818 IANA Considerations for PPP June 2004


Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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

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-
ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.









Schryver Best Current Practice [Page 4]