Re: Quick question on isakmp-registry.

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <HEEHIJAAIOLDCMKIFMKLCEDHCGAA.iana@iana.org>, "IANA" writes:
>Thomas or Steve,
>
>The IANA has received a request for adding
>2 new Next Payload Types.
>
>As far as I can tell, anyone can add a new
>Next Payload Type.
>
>Just triple-checking to see if this is correct.
>Any assistance would be great.
>
>See below for a previous communication with
>an author of related document.
>


I believe you're corect, but I wish you weren't...  It looks like that 
registry was never locked down properly.  That should be either IETF 
Consensus or Standards Action.  I'm not sure how that is fixed, 
procedurally, but it should be.



>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bew@cisco.com [mailto:bew@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 8:54 AM
>To: IANA
>Subject: Re: Quick question on isakmp-registry.
>
>
>Hi Michelle,
>
>IANA wrote:
>>
>> So, you think anyone can add a Next Payload Type?
>
>I think so according to the RFCs, although I agree that probably isn't
>what we want. :-(
>
>Brian
>
>> I'll check with the IESG as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Michelle
>> IANA
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bew@cisco.com [mailto:bew@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:11 PM
>> To: IANA
>> Subject: Re: Quick question on isakmp-registry.
>>
>> Hi Michelle,
>>
>> IANA wrote:
>> >
>> > Brian,
>> >
>> > Since I was just working with you on this
>> > registry I thought you might be a good
>> > person to ask/clarify.
>> >
>> > I just got a request to add what appears
>> > to be 2 Next Payload Types to the registry
>> > we just added at the following:
>> >
>> > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/isakmp-registry>
>> >
>> > When looking for instructions on registration
>> > procedures, I got a bit confused.
>> >
>> > There are no instructions for this registry
>> > in RFCs 2407/2408/2409.
>> >
>> > In the draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-07.txt it does
>> > say the following:
>> >
>> > 7.3 New Name spaces
>> >
>> >    The present document describes many new name spaces for use in the
>> >    GDOI payloads. Those may be found in subsections under Section 5.0. A
>> >    new GDOI registry should be created for these name spaces.
>> >
>> >    Portions of name spaces marked "RESERVED" are reserved for IANA
>> >    allocation. New values MUST be added due to a Standards Action as
>> >    defined in [RFC2434].
>> >
>> >    Portions of name spaces marked "Private Use" may be allocated by
>> >    implementations for their own purposes.
>> >
>> > I can not tell if this is for new NEXT Payload Types?
>> >
>> > Can you clarify?
>>
>> THe above text was intended to be applied to the GDOI name spaces in the
>> GDOI registry. The Next Payload types are in the ISAKMP name space, so
>> are not beholden to the above text.
>>
>> The only ISAKMP rules I found for the Next Payload namespace are in RFC
>> 2408, Section 3.1 Unfortunately, this section doesn't describe any
>> restrictions on adding new Next Payload types.
>>
>> Does that answer your question?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Michelle
>> > IANA
>>
>> --
>> Brian Weis
>> Strategic Cryptographic Development, ITD, Cisco Systems
>> Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
>> Email: bew@cisco.com
>
>--
>Brian Weis
>Strategic Cryptographic Development, ITD, Cisco Systems
>Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
>Email: bew@cisco.com
>


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)