IANABIS

Summary

The IANABIS working group met at IETF 125 to progress the revisions of the fundamental IANA considerations guidelines. The session focused on resolving open issues in draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis (Early IANA Code Point Allocation) and draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs). Key topics included the creation of early registries, the expansion of early allocation procedures to other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), and tightening the rules for "Specification Required" and permanent registrations using Internet-Drafts.

Key Discussion Points

Early Registry Creation and draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis

Amanda Baber presented on the need for early registry creation to help working groups coordinate registrations across multiple documents without relying on temporary wikis.

Process: Creating and renewing these registries will follow the early allocation approach (Chair and AD approval).
Draft Expiration: Martin Nottingham cautioned against over-indexing on draft expiration, noting that drafts expire frequently during the RFC Editor process. Amanda Baber noted that IANA checks for renewals every two years.
Dependency: Sue Hares raised a concern regarding document dependencies where a registration draft might be ready before the registry-creating draft. The group concluded that the registry document must be in a stable state (e.g., sent to the IESG) before dependent early registrations are finalized.

Early Allocation for SDOs

The group discussed allowing other SDOs to use early allocation.

Registry Reuse: There was broad support for reusing the SDO registry established by RFC 6838. Harald Alvestrand suggested using a "limit" field to prevent unintended blanket approvals for all types of registries.
Maturity: Mike Jones argued against strict "nearing completion" requirements, noting that Designated Experts (DEs) are capable of judging if a specification is sufficiently mature. He emphasized that early DE review often improves the quality of the specification itself.
Guardrails: Ted Hardie noted that if SDO documents are nearing completion, the risk of "squatting" is low.

Working Group Author Authority in draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis

A discussion was held on whether authors of WG documents should be able to request FCFS or Expert Review registrations without explicit Chair approval.

John Klensin expressed concern that authors of preliminary WG documents might acquire authority too early.
Jonathan Lennox proposed a notification-based approach rather than a veto.
Consensus Direction: IANA will CC WG chairs on responses to registration requests originating from WG drafts to ensure visibility.

Specification Required and Internet-Drafts

Default Policy: The current plan for draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis is that Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) will not qualify for permanent registration under "Specification Required" unless specifically permitted by the WG or AD.
Responsibility: Paul Hoffman argued that the decision to allow I-Ds should rest with the IESG/ADs rather than WGs, particularly because many registries outlive the WGs that created them.
Tiered Specification Required: Roman Danyliw suggested creating explicit "flexible" vs. "strict" versions of Specification Required to avoid confusion. Martin Nottingham and Roman Danyliw agreed to collaborate on text for this.

Suggested Values and Code Point Squatting

IANA noted frequent issues with authors "squatting" on specific code points or using the next sequential value, leading to collisions.

Martin Nottingham suggested encouraging the use of random values within large code spaces (like QUIC or TLS) to reduce collision risk.
Mark Nottingham highlighted that for HTTP status codes and labels, social pressure is high, and "random" selection is less applicable for semantic strings.
Brent Zundel noted that values in I-Ds are always suggestions and IANA should have the authority to assign different values if needed.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision (Early Registry): Registry creation documents must reach a stable state (e.g., IESG submission) before early allocations into those registries are processed.
Decision (WG Authority): For registration requests (FCFS/Expert Review) from WG documents, IANA will CC the WG chairs on the correspondence.
Action Item: Paul Hoffman to provide text for draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis regarding the AD/IESG role in permitting I-Ds for Specification Required.
Action Item: Roman Danyliw and Martin Nottingham to draft text for "tiered" or "flexible" Specification Required policies.
Action Item: Ted Hardie to request a review of the URN-related text in 8126bis from the urn-nid review list.
Action Item: Brian to assist with text giving Experts explicit leeway to reject purchase-only specifications if they impede the goals of the registry.

Next Steps

Confirm the "notification to WG chairs" baseline on the mailing list.
Resolve the "grandfathering" of existing registries regarding I-D permanent registrations on the list.
Once the "Specification Required" text is resolved, the chairs expect to move toward Working Group Last Call for both draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis and draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis.

For more details, see the Chair slides and the presentation on Early action I-Ds and 8126bis.

Automatic IETF Minutes