doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1174.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1174.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db9ed16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1174.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                            V. Cerf
+Request for Comments:  1174                                         CNRI
+                                                             August 1990
+
+ IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment
+                                  and
+      IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This informational RFC represents the official view of the Internet
+   Activities Board (IAB), and describes the recommended policies and
+   procedures on distributing Internet identifier assignments and
+   dropping the connected status requirement.  This RFC does not specify
+   a standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   Status of this Memo...............................................  1
+   Overview..........................................................  1
+   1.  Recommendation about Internet Identifiers.....................  2
+   1.1.  Summary.....................................................  2
+   1.2.  Introduction................................................  2
+   1.3.  Proposed Method of Operation................................  2
+   2.  Recommendation about Connected Status.........................  3
+   2.1.  Summary.....................................................  3
+   2.2.  Introduction................................................  3
+   2.3.  Recommendations.............................................  4
+   2.a.1.  Attachment 1..............................................  4
+   2.a.1.1.  Summary.................................................  4
+   2.a.1.2.  Background..............................................  4
+   2.a.1.3.  Recommendation..........................................  6
+   2.a.1.4.  Discussion..............................................  7
+   2.a.2.  Attachment 2..............................................  8
+   Security Considerations...........................................  8
+   Author's Address..................................................  9
+
+Overview
+
+   This RFC includes two recommendations from the IAB to the FNC.  The
+   first is a "Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier
+   Assignment", that is, a suggestion to distribute the function of
+   assigning network and autonomous system numbers.  The second is a
+   "Recommended Policy Change to Internet 'Connected' Status", that is,
+   a suggestion to drop the notion of connected status in favor of
+   recording the acceptable use policy and traffic access policy for
+   each network.  Included in this second recommendation is the explict
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+   suggestion that any registered network may be entered into the DNS
+   database without regard to connected status.
+
+1.  Recommendation about Internet Identifiers
+
+   To: Chairman, Federal Networking Council
+   From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board
+   CC: IAB, IESG
+   Subject: Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet
+            Identifier Assignment
+
+1.1.  Summary
+
+   This document recommends procedures for distributing assignment of
+   Internet identifiers (network and autonomous system numbers).
+
+1.2.  Introduction
+
+   Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a
+   central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the allocation
+   and assignment of various numeric identifiers needed for the
+   operation of the Internet.  The IANA function is performed by USC
+   Information Sciences Institute.  The IANA has the discretionary
+   authority to delegate portions of this responsibility and, with
+   respect to numeric network and autonomous system identifiers, has
+   lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR).  This
+   function is performed by SRI International at its Network Information
+   Center (DDN-NIC).
+
+   With the rapid escalation of the number of networks in the Internet
+   and its concurrent internationalization, it is timely to consider
+   further delegation of assignment and registration authority on an
+   international basis.  It is also essential to take into consideration
+   that such identifiers, particularly network identifiers of class A
+   and B type, will become an increasingly scarce commodity whose
+   allocation must be handled with thoughtful care.
+
+1.3.  Proposed Method of Operation
+
+   It is proposed to retain the centralized IANA and IR functions.
+
+   The IR would continue to be the principal registry for all network
+   and autonomous system numbers.  It would also continue to maintain
+   the list of root Domain Name System servers and a database of
+   registered nets and autonomous systems.
+
+   In addition, however, the IR would also allocate to organizations
+   approved by the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+   Networking (CCIRN) blocks of network and autonomous system numbers,
+   as needed, and delegate to them further assignment authority.
+
+   It is recommended that, at least initially, the IR serve as the
+   default registry in cases where no delegated registration authority
+   has been identified.
+
+   Copies of the aggregate Internet registration database(s) should be
+   maintained by the IR and copies provided to each delegated registry
+   to improve redundancy and access to this information.  Updates to the
+   database, however, would still be centralized at the IR with complete
+   copies redistributed by file transfer or other means on a timely
+   basis.
+
+   It is recommended that candidate delegated registries meet with the
+   IANA and IR to review operational procedures and requirements and to
+   produce documentation to be issued as RFCs describing the details of
+   the proposed distributed mode of operation.
+
+   It is recommended that host Domain Name registration continue in its
+   present form which already accommodates distribution of this
+   function.
+
+2.  Recommendation about Connected Status
+
+   To: Chairman, Federal Networking Council (FNC)
+   From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board
+   CC: IAB, IESG
+   Subject: Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status
+
+2.1.  Summary
+
+   This memorandum recommends a change in the current policy for
+   associating "connected" status to a subset of networks which have
+   been assigned an Internet identifier.
+
+2.2.  Introduction
+
+   In the following, the term Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
+   refers to the organization which has primary authority to allocate
+   and assign numeric identifiers required for operation of the
+   Internet.  This function is presently performed by USC Information
+   Sciences Institute.  The term Internet Registry (IR) refers to the
+   organization which has the responsibility for gathering and
+   registering information about networks to which identifiers (network
+   numbers, autonomous system numbers) have been assigned by the IR.  At
+   present, SRI International serves as the IR.
+
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+   Attachments (1) and (2) outline the rationale for and implications of
+   changing the current policy for associating "connected" status with
+   only a subset of networks which have been assigned Internet
+   identifiers.
+
+2.3.  Recommendations
+
+   The following actions are recommended:
+
+      1. The Internet Registry should be instructed to drop all
+      reference to "connected" status in its databases and in its forms
+      for Internet network and autonomous system registration.
+
+      2. The Internet Registry should be instructed to request brief
+      statements of acceptable network usage, access and transit policy
+      for external traffic (i.e., traffic entering from or exiting to
+      other networks) from each applicant for a network or autonomous
+      system identifier.  For example, some networks conform to the
+      National Science Foundation acceptable use guidelines; other
+      networks will carry any traffic (e.g., common carriers); others
+      may prohibit transit use.  Retrospective statements should be
+      gathered by the IR for networks already registered.  Such
+      statements should be made available on-line and widely publicized.
+
+      3. The Internet Registry should be instructed to allow any
+      registered networks to be entered into the Domain Name Server
+      database without regard to "connected" status.
+
+   Attachment: (1) Recommendation for replacement of "Connected" Status
+               (2) Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity
+
+2.a.1.  Attachment 1
+
+Recommendation for Replacement of "Connected" Status
+
+2.a.1.1.  Summary
+
+   A revision of the current Internet procedures controlling connection
+   to the Internet is recommended to solve urgent problems caused by
+   Internet growth both in the US and internationally.  The
+   recommendation involves relaxation of the present "connected" status
+   rule and the creation of a policy database to guide network
+   administrators.
+
+2.a.1.2.  Background
+
+   With the demise of the ARPANET and the growth of a global Internet,
+   the administration and registration of Internet network numbers has
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+   outgrown its initially conceived client base: military, government
+   and government-sponsored research organizations.  Since the
+   international growth has extended the Internet community to industry
+   and a broad range of academic and research institutions, we must re-
+   evaluate some of the criteria for assignment and use of Internet
+   network numbers.
+
+   In the early phases of the Internet research project, numbers were
+   assigned only to networks of organizations that were participating in
+   the research effort.  Later, as the system became more stable and
+   expanded into a widespread infrastructure, other organizations with
+   networks were assigned network numbers and allowed to interconnect if
+   they were parts of the U.S. Government or sponsored by a Government
+   organization.  To ensure global uniqueness, a single Internet
+   Registry (IR) was designated: the Defense Data Net Network
+   Information Center (DDN-NIC) at SRI International.
+
+   As the Internet protocols became popular in the commercial
+   marketplace, many organizations purchased and installed private
+   networks that needed network number assignments but were not intended
+   to be connected to the federally-sponsored system.  The IR adopted a
+   policy of assigning network numbers to all who requested them, while
+   distinguishing networks permitted to link to the global Internet by
+   assigning them "connected" status.  Essentially, this meant that the
+   network to which the number was assigned had the sanction of a U.S.
+   Government sponsoring organization to link to the Internet.
+
+   The present day Internet encompasses networks that serve as
+   intermediaries to access the federally-sponsored backbones.  Many of
+   these intermediate networks were initiated under the sponsorship of
+   the National Science Foundation.  Some have been founded without
+   federal assistance as consortia of using organizations.  The
+   Government has expressed a desire that all such networks be self-
+   supporting, without the need for federal subsidy.  To achieve this
+   goal, it has been essential for the intermediate networks to support
+   an increasingly varied range of users.  A great many industrial
+   participants can be found on the intermediate level networks.  Their
+   use of the federally-sponsored backbones is premised on the basis
+   that the traffic is in support of academic, scholarly or other
+   research work.  The criteria for use of the intermediate level
+   networks alone is sometimes more relaxed and, in the cases of the
+   newly-formed commercial networks, there are no restrictions at all.
+
+   In essence, each network needs to be able to determine, on the basis
+   of its own criteria, with which networks it will interconnect and for
+   which networks it will support transit service.  There is no longer a
+   simple binary correlation between "connected" status and acceptable
+   use policy.  The matter becomes even more complex as we contemplate
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+   the large and growing number of non-U.S. networks joining the global
+   Internet.  It is inappropriate to require that all of these networks
+   adhere to U.S. access and use criteria; rather, it can only be
+   required that the traffic they send through the federally-sponsored
+   networks be consistent with the federal criteria.
+
+2.a.1.3.  Recommendation
+
+   Since the concept of a single, global "connected" status is no longer
+   meaningful, it is recommended that it be retired and to define new
+   characteristics that could be used by networks within the Internet to
+   determine a specific network's eligibility to communicate with other
+   networks.
+
+   Some attributes which might be useful to track and could be used as
+   criteria to determine the acceptability of Internet traffic for
+   routing purposes include:
+
+       1) Country codes
+
+       2) Conformance to acceptable use policy for:
+             NSFNET, MILNET, NSI, ESnet, NORDUnet, ...
+
+   To implement this idea, the IR would update the current Internet-
+   Number-Template to query applicants for the necessary information.
+   This information would then be collected in a database containing,
+   for instance, a matrix of network numbers over policies.  Note that
+   the policies might be presented in narrative form.  In addition, the
+   usage policies of the various networks must be publicly available so
+   that applicants and other interested parties can be advised of policy
+   issues as they relate to various networks.
+
+   Under this proposal, the IR would be charged with the registration
+   and administration of the Internet number space but not with the
+   enforcement of policy.  The IR should collect enough information to
+   permit network administrators to make intelligent decisions as to the
+   acceptability of traffic destined to or from each and every
+   legitimate Internet number.  Enforcement of policies is discussed
+   below.
+
+   At a later step, we anticipate that it will be desirable to
+   distribute the IR function among multiple centers, e.g., with centers
+   on different continents.  This should be straight-forward once the IR
+   function is divorced from policy enforcement.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+2.a.1.4.  Discussion
+
+   It is already true in the current Internet that there are
+   restrictions on certain traffic on particular networks.  For example,
+   two intermediate level networks that are willing to carry arbitrary
+   traffic can link with each other but are barred from passing
+   commercial traffic or any other traffic that is not for academic or
+   scholarly purposes across the federally-sponsored backbones.
+
+   Routing of traffic based upon acceptable-use policies requires a
+   technical ability known as "policy-based routing" (PBR).  At the
+   present time, the PBR mechanism available in the Internet operates as
+   the level of an entire network; all users and hosts on a network are
+   subject to the same routes for a given destination.  Using this PBR
+   mechanism, a network maintains routes (and provides transit services)
+   only for networks with compatible use policies.  For an intermediate
+   level network, for example, the routing decisions must be made on the
+   basis of the network numbers assigned to the organizations; some
+   might be considered to have traffic conformant with federal use
+   policies and some might not.
+
+   Although it is much more fine-grained than the current "on or off"
+   rule of connected status, the use of PBR based on networks is still a
+   very coarse measure of control.  Since the decision on acceptability
+   is made at the network level, one has to assign a set of
+   characteristics to all traffic emanating from or entering into a
+   given network to make this access control strategy work.  Strict
+   application of such controls could prevent a commercial organization
+   from legitimately sending research or scholarly data across the
+   federal backbone (e.g., IBM needs to communicate with MCI and MERIT
+   about NSFNET, but other parts of IBM may need to communicate on
+   commercial matters). Organizations with a variety of uses might have
+   to artificially define several networks with which to associate
+   different use policies.
+
+   The practical result is that in order to support desirable usage
+   patterns, government-sponsored networks will sometimes have to depend
+   upon self-policing by traffic sources, rather than upon strict
+   mechanical enforcement of acceptable use policies.  Higher certainty
+   on usage will have a cost in terms of limiting desirable access.
+
+   An important project now underway in the Internet Engineering Task
+   Force (IETF) is developing a more general mechanism for PBR that will
+   allow control at the level of individual hosts and possibly even
+   user.  It will give an end host or user the ability to select routes,
+   taking into consideration issues such as cost, performance and
+   reliability of the transit networks.
+
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+2.a.2.  Attachment 2
+
+IAB Policy Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity
+
+   The Internet Domain Name system (DNS) is an essential part of the
+   networking infrastructure.  It establishes a global distributed
+   database for mapping host names into IP addresses and for delivering
+   electronic mail.  Its efficient and reliable functioning is vital to
+   nearly all Internet users.
+
+   Some DNS operations depend upon the existence of a complete database
+   at certain "root" servers, in particular at the Internet Registry
+   (IP) located at the Defense Data Net Network Information Center at
+   SRI International (DDN-NIC).  The past policy has been to tie
+   inclusion in this database to approval of Internet interconnection by
+   a U.S. Government agency.  This "connected" status restriction is no
+   longer viable, and recommendations for its replacement have been put
+   forward.
+
+   In any case, we believe that the DNS database is not the proper
+   architectural level for enforcement of administrative access
+   restrictions, e.g., controls over the announcement of networks in the
+   routing protocols.
+
+   The Internet Activities Board (IAB) therefore strongly endorses the
+   following recommendation from the Federal Engineering Planning Group
+   to the Federal Networking Council, to provide DNS service regardless
+   of access control policies:
+
+      "There has been a great deal of discussion about domain
+      nameservers, the IN-ADDR domain, and "connected" status as the
+      Internet has grown to include many more nations than just the
+      United States.  As we move to a more global Internet, it seems
+      like it would be a good idea to re-evaluate some of the rules that
+      have governed the naming and registration policies that exist.
+
+      The naming and routing should be completely decoupled.  In
+      particular, it should be possible to register both a name/domain,
+      as well as address servers within the IN-ADDR domain, independent
+      of whether the client has "connected" status or not.  This should
+      be implemented immediately by the IR at the DDN-NIC.  No U.S.
+      Government sponsor should be required for domain name/address
+      registration."
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
+
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1174       Identifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Vinton G. Cerf
+   Corporation for National Research Initiatives
+   1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
+   Reston, VA 22091
+
+   Phone: (703) 620-8990
+
+   EMail: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Cerf                                                            [Page 9]
+
\ No newline at end of file