Subject: [Int-area] ARP IANA considerations

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:21:34 +0300

I am trying to determine if there is an RFC that would define the IANA 
rules for ARP protocol fields, such as the opcode. So far, I have not 
been able to find such an RFC. Anyone know of existing rules, or should 
I assume that no such IANA rules exist?

Jari

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:37:11 -0700

As far as I know, it is not an IANA-maintained registry.
The numbering space can only be extended by RFC.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:22 PM
> To: Internet Area
> Subject: [Int-area] ARP IANA considerations
>
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:41:51 +0300

Dave,

> The numbering space can only be extended by RFC.

IANA is keeping track of the parameters, see:

    http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

and we get occasional requests for new allocations. However, the IANA 
page lists the registration procedures as "not defined?". This is why I 
am asking. Is this because we have missed the rules, or because they 
simply do not exist?

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:52:05 +1300

On 2008-10-21 11:41, Jari Arkko wrote:
> page lists the registration procedures as "not defined?".

Having actually *read* the ARP RFC a while back when I was preparing
lectures, I find the notion of people asking for new op-codes
rather scary. Could we consider "registry closed"?

    Brian

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:48:58 -0400

ARP certainly precedes any notion of defining rules for how to add
code points. However, as a contributor to an RFC that extended ARP
(Inverse ARP, RFC 1293), at that time we wrote a draft in the IPLPDN
working group that defined the new code points, and it went through
the usual standards track process.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:55:27 -0700

Yeah they may be keeping track, but as noted there, there's nowhere that
authorizes IANA to assign any numbers.

-Dave

> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:42 PM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: Internet Area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] ARP IANA considerations
>
> Dave,
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:33:31 +0300

Since I was unable to find existing rules, I have written a proposal for 
the rules:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-00.txt

The motivation for writing this draft is two-fold: first, it is useful 
to "clean up" our registries and attempt to ensure that most of them 
have defined allocation procedures. Secondly, I would like the IANA to 
be able to handle allocation requests without having to ask the IESG, as 
they now do. The allocation rules in the draft have been crafted so that 
the common case is FCFS and only if something drastic happens (multiple 
numbers needed, new opcode) there's a requirement to escalate the 
request to the IETF.

Comments appreciated.

Jari

---

From: "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:19:50 -0400

That looks good but I would recommend that the values 0 and 0xFFFF for
ar$hrd and ar$op be listed as Reserved.

Thanks,
Donald
-- 
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Since I was unable to find existing rules, I have written a proposal for the
> rules:
>
> The motivation for writing this draft is two-fold: first, it is useful to
> "clean up" our registries and attempt to ensure that most of them have
> defined allocation procedures. Secondly, I would like the IANA to be able to
> handle allocation requests without having to ask the IESG, as they now do.
> The allocation rules in the draft have been crafted so that the common case
> is FCFS and only if something drastic happens (multiple numbers needed, new
> opcode) there's a requirement to escalate the request to the IETF.
>
> Comments appreciated.
>
> Jari
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:07:03 -0700

Dave,

ARP codepoints have been in the Assigned Numbers RFC for a while, since
RFC 900 (June 1984). AFAICT, IANA took over everything in Assigned
Numbers as a starting point when it was created.

Is there something more specific you're looking for, and if so, does it
exist for other similarly legacy sets of code points?

Joe

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:07:43 -0400

Jari,

Looks good. Your discussion of the use of the experimental values can
be replaced just by saying that use of the experimental values must
follow the guidelines in RFC 3692.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:18:04 +0400

All,

Thanks for your comments. I have posted a slightly updated version at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules

Jari