Network Working Group C. Groves
Internet Draft NTEC Australia
Intended status: BCP Y. Lin
Expires: January 2009 Huawei
July 29, 2008
H.248/MEGACO Registration Procedures
draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02.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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document updates the H.248/MEGACO IANA Package Registration
procedures in order to better describe the Package registration
process and to provide a more formal review and feedback process.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
Conventions used in this document
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................... 2
2. Formal Syntax ......................................... 4
3. Security Considerations ................................ 4
4. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations .................... 4
4.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert ....... 5
4.2. Package Registration Procedure .................... 5
4.3. Error Code Registration Procedure ................. 7
4.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure ....... 8
4.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure ............... 8
5. IANA Considerations .................................... 9
5.1. New IANA Package Registration ..................... 9
5.2. IANA Error Code Registration ..................... 10
5.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration ........... 10
5.4. IANA Profile Name Registration ................... 11
6. Acknowledgments ....................................... 11
7. References ............................................ 12
7.1. Normative References ............................. 12
7.2. Informative References............................ 12
Authors' Addresses ....................................... 12
Intellectual Property Statement .......................... 13
Disclaimer of Validity ................................... 13
1. Introduction
Since the initial development of H.248/MEGACO a number of
organizations have made use of the H.248/MEGACO protocol Package
mechanism in order to allow a certain function to be controlled by
H.248/MEGACO. The H.248/MEGACO package mechanism was in part
introduced to allow organizations who had an in depth knowledge in a
particular functional area to independently produce a package on this
functionality. This acknowledged the fact that neither the IETF
MEGACO Working Group nor the ITU-T Study Group 16 possessed in depth
knowledge in all areas. Whilst this approach has been successful in
the number and range of packages produced, in some cases these
Packages were/are not fully aligned with H.248/MEGACO principles.
Once a Package has been published and registered it is problematic to
rectify any issues.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
The introduction of problems/inconsistencies was in part caused by
the fact that the Packages were not fully reviewed by H.248/MEGACO
experts. In fact the IANA H.248/MEGACO registration process did not
actually specify that an in depth review should take place.
The current H.248/MEGACO Package registration process was defined
when ITU-T Study Group 16 and the IETF Megaco Working Groups were
both active in Megaco/H.248 standardization and produced nearly all
the registered Packages. Packages were reviewed in the IETF MEGACO
Working Group and the Working Group chair was the IESG appointed
expert in charge of the review of the requests for H.248 Package
registration. This meant that H.248 Packages underwent an informal
review before being registered. However this has changed.
The current situation is that now the IETF Megaco working group is
disbanded and new H.248/MEGACO development typically occurs through
Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 (not withstanding email discussion
on the IETF MEGACO mailing list). This move to ITU-T defined
Recommendations is discussed in [RFC5125].
Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
Package definition and IANA registration rules are updated to
introduce a formal review step before the Package registration
process is completed and ideally before the Package is published.
This process would only be applicable to public Packages.
As part of the Package development process Package developers are
encouraged to send their Package for review to the ITU-T Study Group
Question Rapporteur responsible for the H.248 sub-series (Question 3
of Study Group 16 at the time of writing). When registering the
Package with IANA, package developers are required to send a copy of
the package for review by the IESG appointed expert. It is
recommended to register the Package before final approval by the
group in question in order to solicit feedback on the quality of
their Package. Where ever possible this review will be done in
conjunction with other H.248/MEGACO experts (e.g. in Q.3/16 and/or
the MEGACO mailing list).
The existing IANA Package registration process is a two step process.
When Packages are first registered they receive the status of "In
Progress (IP)". This allows Package developers to request a PackageID
before the document is fully approved. When the document is approved
then a change of status to "Final", may be requested. The new
procedure introduces the step that the IESG appointed expert is
consulted before a change of status is made. If the Package has been
reviewed and is acceptable then the status may be changed to "Final".
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
However if the package has not been provided for review or it has
outstanding comments then the status SHALL remain at "IP".
The goal of the updated text is to define a process that provides a
timely technical review of packages to ensure that H.248/MEGACO
packages are of good quality and minimize duplication.
The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name"
registration procedures have been included for completeness and to
make explicit the role of the IESG reviewer. These procedures align
with the considerations documented in [H.248amm1] and with [RFC3525]
(with the exception of Profile Names which did not appear in this
version).
2. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in RFC-5234 [RFC5234].
Text encoded PackageIDs shall conform to the "PackageName" encoding
in H.248.1 [H248amm1] Annex B. Repeated below for convienience:
PackageName = NAME
NAME = ALPHA *63(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_")
Note: A digit is not allowed as the first character of a package
name.
3. Security Considerations
Updating the IANA H.248/MEGACO package registration procedures has no
additional security implications. Security for the H.248/MEGACO
protocol is discussed in H.248.1 section 10 [H.248amm1]. Requesters
for public packages for a particular standards development
organization must be authorized by that organization to request a
Package registration.
4. IESG Expert Reviewer Considerations
For public registered Packages, Error Codes, ServiceChangeReasons and
Profile Names review by an Expert reviewer is required before IANA
performs a registration. Private Packages do not require the same
level of review. The sections below outline the considerations for
Expert review.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
4.1. Appointment of the IESG H.248/MEGACO Expert
The IESG shall remain responsible for allocating the H.248/MEGACO
expert. It is recommended that this person be involved in ongoing
H.248/MEGACO development. As such it is recommended that
identification of the IESG expert be done in consultation with the
ITU-T Study Group/Question responsible for the H.248 sub-series of
Recommendations, Q.3/16 at the time of writing.
4.2. Package Registration Procedure
Package requesters are encouraged to review their work against
H.248.1 section 12 [H.248amm1] "Package Definition" and are
encouraged to use the "Package Definition Template" provided in
H.248.1 Appendix II.
The process for registering a public Package is deemed to be
"specification required" as per [RFC5226]. As such once the initial
checks occur Package requesters for public packages under development
shall send the package text to IANA. They are also encouraged to send
the package to the ITU-T Question/Study Group responsible for the
H.248 sub-series of Recommendations (Q.3/16 at the time of writing)
for review. Updated contact information can be found in the latest
version of the H.248 Sub-series Implementors' Guide. This should
occur as soon as practicable after the rough draft of the definition
is completed and at least before the package is approved in order to
ensure the package is consistent with H.248 methodologies and package
design principles.
In order to register private packages, a specification is not
required but is encouraged.
Package requesters are encouraged to request registration as early as
practicable in the design process, to reserve a binary ID. Binary
IDs shall be published in the document defining the package.
Once the initial or final request for a Package registration is
received by IANA it will be forwarded to the IESG appointed Expert
for review. During the review the input package and details will be
compared to the Package template for completeness, as well as being
compared against protocol syntax and procedures. It will be compared
against existing work to see that it does not duplicate existing
functionality. The Expert reviewer will then work towards a
resolution of any issues with the Package requester. The IESG
appointed Expert may complete the review in consultation with other
H.248 experts (i.e. Currently Question 3 of ITU-T Study Group 16 and
via email to IETF Megaco email list). If the package is deemed
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
suitable, the IESG appointed Expert shall issue a statement
indicating approval, copied to IANA.
The IESG Expert Reviewer will ensure the following considerations are
met to register a package with the IANA:
1) A unique string name, unique serial number and version number is
registered for each package. The string name is used as the PackageID
for text encoding. The serial number is used as the PackageID for
binary encoding. Public packages MUST be given serial numbers in the
range 0x0001 to 0x7fff. Private packages MUST be given serial
numbers in the range 0x8000 to 0xffff. Serial number 0 is reserved.
The unique string name and unique serial number MAY either be
requested by the package requester or if not requested, assigned by
the IANA.
2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and
postal addresses for that contact shall be specified. The contact
information shall be updated by the defining organization as
necessary.
3) The public package requester shall provide a reference to a
document that describes the package, which should be public:
a) The document shall specify the version of the package that it
describes.
b) If the document is public, it should be located on a public web
server and should have a stable URL. The site should provide a
mechanism to provide comments and appropriate responses should be
returned.
c) If the document is not public, it must be made available for
review by the IESG appointed Expert (without requiring an NDA) at the
time of the application.
Note: The documenting text does not have to be publicly available at
the time of the registration request, however the text shall be
provided available for review by the IESG appointed Expert at the
time of application.
For private packages a contact email address for the package
registration shall be provided.
4) Packages registered by other than recognized standards bodies
shall have a minimum package name length of 8 characters.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all
other conditions are met.
Status - "In Progress" indicates that the package has not been fully
reviewed and approved therefore may contain errors or may not be
consistent with H.248 principles. "Final" indicates that the Package
has been reviewed and approved and is stable. New packages shall be
registered with a status of "IP". Once the Package has been finalized
(i.e. approved according to the procedures of the Package Requester's
Organisation)they should contact IANA in order to update the status
to "Final".
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.
The IANA will assign a serial number to each package meeting the
conditions of registration (except for an update of an existing
package, which retains the serial number of the package it is
updating), in consecutive order of registration.
4.3. Error Code Registration Procedure
Error Code requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
the error code. Documentation addressing the considerations below
shall be provided (i.e. Specification required as per [RFC5226]). The
IANA shall then forward the request to the IESG appointed Expert for
review.
The following considerations shall be met to register an error code
with IANA:
1) An error number and a one-line (80-character maximum) string are
registered for each error.
2) A complete description of the conditions under which the error is
detected shall be included in a publicly available document. The
description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the error
from all other existing error codes.
3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
have a stable URL.
4) Error numbers registered by recognized standards bodies shall have
3- or 4-character error numbers.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
5) Error numbers registered by all other organizations or individuals
shall have 4-character error numbers.
6) An error number shall not be redefined nor modified except by the
organization or individual that originally defined it, or their
successors or assigns.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise the IANA to register the Package.
4.4. ServiceChange Reason Registration Procedure
ServiceChange Reason requesters shall send a request to the IANA to
register the ServiceChange Reason. Documentation addressing the
considerations below shall be provided (i.e. Specification required
as per [RFC5226]). The IANA shall then forward the request to the
IESG appointed Expert for review.
The following considerations shall be met to register ServiceChange
reason with IANA:
1) A one-phrase, 80-character maximum, unique reason code is
registered for each reason.
2) A complete description of the conditions under which the reason is
used shall be included in a publicly available document. The
description shall be sufficiently clear to differentiate the reason
from all other existing reasons.
3) The document should be available on a public web server and should
have a stable URL.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.
4.5. Profile Name Registration Procedure
Profile Name requesters shall send a request to the IANA to register
the Profile Name. Documentation addressing the considerations below
shall be provided. The IANA shall then forward the request to the
IESG appointed Expert for review.
The following considerations shall be met to register a profile with
IANA:
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
1) A unique string name and version number (version may be omitted
when the profile name contains a wildcard) is registered for each
profile.
2) A contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall
be specified. The contact information shall be updated by the
defining organization as necessary.
3) Profiles registered by other than recognized standards bodies
shall have a minimum profile name length of 6 characters.
4) Profile names containing a wildcard "*" on the end of their names
shall be accepted if the first 6 characters are fully specified. It
is assumed that the organization that was issued with the profile
name will manage the namespace associated with the wildcard. IANA
shall not issue other profiles names within "name*" range.
All other profile names are first come-first served if all other
conditions are met.
Once the IESG Appointed Expert has determined that the registration
is appropriate they will advise IANA to register the Package.
5. IANA Considerations
This document describes an updated package registration procedure.
[RFC5226] has been considered in making the updates. This document
does not alter the tabular package, error code and service change
reason information in the Megaco/H.248 Packages registry.
The "Error Code", "ServiceChange Reason" and "Profile Name" IANA
considerations have been included for completeness. These
considerations align with the considerations documented in H.248.1
[H248amm1] and with [RFC3525] (with the exception of Profile Names
which did not appear in this version).
5.1. New IANA Package Registration
On the request for an initial or final Package registration the IANA
shall forward to received information (i.e. the Package Text
(Specification required as per [RFC5226]) to the IESG appointed
expert for review (See section 4.2).
After the review when instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the
IANA shall register the following information in the "Megaco/H.248
Packages" registry as described below:
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
1. Binary ID (or serial number)
2. Text ID - See section 3 for the syntax.
3. Package version
4. Extension information - Binary ID and package version
5. Status* - IP ("In Progress") or Final.
6. Package name, Reference and Contact information
IANA will maintain the currency and public availability of the
tabulation of public and private packages. Packages will be listed
in increasing order of serial number. Updates to packages will be
listed in increasing order of version number.
5.2. IANA Error Code Registration
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
to received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. Error Code Number
2. Error Code Text String
3. Reference
5.3. IANA ServiceChange Reason Registration
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text
(Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
section 4.4).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. ServiceChange Reason Number
2. ServiceChange Reason Text String
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
3. Reference
5.4. IANA Profile Name Registration
On the request for a Profile Name registration, the IANA shall
forward to received request to the IESG appointed expert for review
(See section 4.5).
When instructed by the IESG appointed Expert the IANA shall register
the following information in the "Megaco/H.248 Packages" registry as
described below:
1. Profile Name
2. Version
3. Reference/Contact
6. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P., "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
[H248amm1] International Telecommunication Union, "Gateway control
protocol: Version 3", Amendment 1 to ITU-T Recommendation
H.248.1, April 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3525] Groves C., Pantaleo M., Anderson T. and Taylor T., "Gateway
Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.
[RFC5125] Taylor, T., "Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic", RFC
5125, February 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
Authors' Addresses
Christian Groves
NTEC Australia
Newport, Victoria
Australia
Email: Christian.Groves@nteczone.com
Yangbo Lin
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen, Guangdong
P. R. China
Email: linyangbo@huawei.com
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Package Registration Procedures July 2008
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-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Groves Expires January 29, 2009 [Page 13]