1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6254.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6254.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dde072a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6254.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       M. McFadden
+Request for Comments: 6254                                         ICANN
+Obsoletes: 2754                                                 May 2011
+Category: Informational
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+              Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
+
+Abstract
+
+   RFC 2754 requested that each time IANA made an address assignment, it
+   was to create appropriate inetnum and as-block objects and digitally
+   sign them.  The purpose was to distribute the IANA-held public key in
+   software implementations of the Distributed Routing Policy System.
+   In practice, this was never done on the public Internet.  This
+   document requests that RFC 2754 be moved to Historic status.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
+   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6254.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6254               RFC 2754 to Historic Status              May 2011
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. Details .........................................................2
+   3. Terminology .....................................................3
+   4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
+   5. Security Considerations .........................................3
+   6. Acknowledgments .................................................3
+   7. Informative Reference ...........................................3
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
+   charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols that
+   have been designed, created, or are maintained by the Internet
+   Engineering Task Force (IETF).  RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the
+   IANA create a repository of Routing Policy Specification Language
+   (RPSL) objects and digitally sign them.  The RFC identifies the
+   initial objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA
+   makes an address assignment it also create new objects as needed and
+   sign them as well.  In practice, this was never done in the public
+   Internet.  During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration
+   activities in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was
+   identified as one of those that had not been completed after
+   publication of the RFC.
+
+   This document obsoletes RFC 2754 [RFC2754], recommends that it be
+   moved to Historic status, and directs IANA not to move forward with
+   the IANA actions in that RFC.
+
+2.  Details
+
+   RFC 2754 [RFC2754] requests that the IANA create a repository of RPSL
+   objects and digitally sign them.  The RFC identifies the initial
+   objects to be signed and also requests that each time IANA makes an
+   address assignment it also create new objects as needed and sign them
+   as well.
+
+   During a review of RFCs in 2009, it became apparent that the IANA
+   actions requested in RFC 2754 were never done.  In the intervening
+   time, another technology appears to be taking the role once
+   envisioned for Distributed RPSL.  Both an architecture and
+   infrastructure now exist for secure routing using Resource Public Key
+   Infrastructure (RPKI) technologies.  As an example, the semantics of
+   a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) -- an application of the RPKI --
+   to validate the origination of routes has been standardized by
+   the IETF.
+
+
+
+
+McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6254               RFC 2754 to Historic Status              May 2011
+
+
+   Implementation of the IANA actions in RFC 2754 would now require
+   significant implementation complexity.  In the face of alternative
+   technology, and given that the requested actions have not been
+   implemented in the public Internet, it is proposed to reclassify
+   RFC 2754 [RFC2754] as Historic and to direct the IANA not to pursue
+   or implement the IANA requests in that document.
+
+3.  Terminology
+
+   The word "allocation" designates a block of addresses managed by a
+   registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations.  The
+   word "assignment" designates a block of addresses, or a single
+   address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or
+   set of networks.
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA is instructed not to pursue or implement the IANA actions
+   requested in RFC 2754 [RFC2754].
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   The intended signature of inetnum and as-block objects never took
+   place in the public Internet.  Moving RFC 2754 [RFC2754] to Historic
+   status would have no known impact on the security of the Internet.
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   The author would like to thank Alfred Hoenes, Russ Housley, Leo
+   Vegoda, Terry Manderson, Jari Arkko, Dan Romascanu, Michelle Cotton,
+   and David Conrad for their constructive feedback and comments.
+
+7.  Informative Reference
+
+   [RFC2754]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., and R. Govindan, "RPS
+              IANA Issues", RFC 2754, January 2000.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Mark McFadden
+   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
+   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
+   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
+   United States
+   Phone: +1-608-628-2674
+   EMail: mark.mcfadden@icann.org
+   URI:   http://www.iana.org
+
+
+
+
+McFadden                      Informational                     [Page 3]
+