



Network Working Group                                      A. Baber, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Tanamal, Ed.
Obsoletes: 7120 (if approved)                                       IANA
Intended status: Best Current Practice                     November 2025
Expires: 10 May 2026


    Early IANA Code Point Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts
                    draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis-00

Abstract

   This memo describes the requirements for securing IANA code point
   assignments before RFC publication.  In particular, it describes the
   "early allocation" process that allows for temporary but renewable
   allocations from registries that would ordinarily require an IESG-
   approved Internet-Draft: primarily, registries maintained in
   accordance with the "Standards Action," "IETF Review," "RFC
   Required," and, in some cases, "Specification Required" policies
   described in draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis.  This process can be used
   when code point allocation is needed to facilitate desired or
   required implementation and deployment experience prior to
   publication.  The procedures in this document are intended to apply
   only to IETF Stream documents.

   This document obsoletes RFC 7120.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 May 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Changes Since RFC 7120  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Process for Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Expiry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need
   to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other
   protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate.
   Assignments from these code point spaces are handled by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in accordance with processes
   described in [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis].

   In situations where code points are a scarce resource and/or the IETF
   community has consensus to retain tight control over which
   assignments qualify, policies such as "IETF Review" or "Standards
   Action" are used.  However, these allocation policies present a
   problem in situations where implementation and/or deployment
   experience are desired or required before the document has been
   finalized and approved for publication by the IESG.

   Because IANA normally waits for the IESG to approve publication
   before allocating values for Internet-Drafts, some document authors
   have historically chosen seemingly-unused code points to facilitate
   pre-publication testing, often by selecting the next available value
   in the registry.



Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   However, values cannot be guaranteed until IANA allocates them.  If
   IANA later assigns values that don't match the values specified in
   the draft (for example, because those expected values were allocated
   for another purpose while the document was in development), that
   mismatch can result in interoperability problems between early "pre-
   RFC" implementations that use the unofficial values and
   implementations that adhere to the official IANA assignments
   published in the registry and the RFC.  This is contrary to the main
   purpose of standards: namely, to facilitate interoperable
   implementations.

   This memo outlines the process for making early allocations of code
   points in order to allow for such pre-RFC testing.  In effect,
   allocations from registries that would otherwise require an IESG-
   approved Internet-Draft can be acquired on a time-limited basis
   earlier in the document development process, provided the allocation
   request meets certain eligibility criteria.  When appropriate, these
   early allocations will be carried through to the final published
   specification.

1.1.  Changes Since RFC 7120

   This is the third edition of the document that describes the policy
   for early allocations.  This edition, which obsoletes [RFC7120],
   extends the early allocation term from one year to two.  It also
   clarifies aspects of the renewal process, notes that IANA requests
   expert approval if permanent allocation would require it (as in
   "Specification Required"), and emphasizes that early allocation
   requires the special process described in this document only when the
   registry requires RFC publication.

2.  Conditions for Early Allocation

   If the desired code points come from a "First Come First Served" or
   "Expert Review" space, authors can request permanent registration
   from IANA at any time, regardless of document status.  (However,
   registry-specific eligibility criteria may apply, and experts may
   wish to postpone approval until the document advances.)

   The following conditions must hold before IANA can process a request
   for early allocation of code points from other spaces:










Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   a.  The code points must come from a space that requires RFC
       publication.  Most registries of this type use the "RFC
       Required," "IETF Review," and/or "Standards Action" registration
       procedures defined by [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis], but some use
       combined or custom procedures.  Additionally, this process can be
       applied to requests for early assignment from a "Specification
       Required" registry if the specification will be published as an
       RFC and if IANA can obtain expert approval.

   b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
       handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
       (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
       in an IETF Stream Internet-Draft.

   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
       there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
       specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

   d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) must determine
       that there is sufficient interest in the community for early
       (pre-RFC) implementation and deployment, or that failure to make
       an early allocation might lead to contention for the code point
       in the field.

3.  Process for Early Allocation

   There are three processes associated with early allocation: making
   the request for code points, following up on the request, and
   revoking an early allocation.

   The processes described below assume that the document in question is
   the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the case,
   replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding AD."

3.1.  Request

   The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code
   points is as follows:

   1.  The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
       allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code
       points require early allocation and to which document they should
       be assigned.

   2.  The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
       allocations described in Section 2 are met, particularly
       conditions (c) and (d).




Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   3.  The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that
       early allocation is appropriate for the given document.

   4.  If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval
       from the AD(s).  The AD(s) may apply judgment to the request,
       especially if there is a risk of registry depletion.

   5.  If the ADs approve step 4), the WG chairs contact IANA to request
       an early allocation.

   6.  If the allocation comes from a "Specification Required" registry,
       or another registry that requires both RFC publication and review
       by an IESG-designated expert, IANA asks the expert(s) to approve
       the request.

   7.  IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking
       the allocation as "Temporary," valid for a period of two years
       from the date of allocation.  The date of first allocation and
       the date of expiry are also recorded in the registry and made
       visible to the public.

   Note that Internet-Drafts should not include a specific value of a
   code point until IANA has completed the early allocation for this
   value.  If a desired value must be named in the document before IANA
   can allocate the code point, it should be clearly labeled as, e.g.,
   "(suggested)" or "(TBD)."

3.2.  Follow-Up

   It is the responsibility of the document authors and the Working
   Group chairs to review changes in the document, and especially in the
   specifications of the code points for which early allocation was
   requested, to ensure that the changes are backward compatible.

   If at some point changes that are not backward compatible are
   nonetheless required, a decision needs to be made as to whether
   previously allocated code points must be deprecated (see Section 3.3
   for more information on code point deprecation).  The considerations
   include aspects such as the possibility of existing deployments of
   the older implementations and, hence, the possibility for a collision
   between older and newer implementations in the field.

   If the document progresses to the point at which IANA normally makes
   code point allocations, it is the responsibility of the authors and
   the WG chairs to remind IANA that there were early allocations and of
   the code point values allocated in the IANA Considerations section of
   the RFC-to-be.  Allocation is then just a matter of removing the
   "Temporary" tag from the allocation description.



Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


3.3.  Expiry

   As described in Section 3.1, each temporary assignment is recorded in
   the registry with the date of expiry of the assignment.  If an early
   allocation will expire before the IESG approves the document for
   publication, IANA will contact the WG chairs and AD to ask whether
   they wish to renew the code points for an additional two-year period.

   After the first extension, any further renewal requests must also be
   approved by the IESG.  The renewal request to the IESG must include
   the reason(s) another renewal is necessary and the WG's plans for the
   specification.

   If an extension is not approved, IANA will ask the WG chairs whether
   they recommend deprecating the code point; completely de-allocating
   it, making it available for assignment again; or leaving the
   allocation in place, but with its "temporary" marker, and an
   expiration date indicating that it is no longer valid.  Factors
   influencing this decision will include whether there may be
   implementations using the previous temporary allocation and the
   availability of other unallocated code points in the registry.

   Implementers and deployers need to be aware that deprecation and de-
   allocation could take place at any time after expiry.  An expired
   early allocation is therefore best considered as deprecated.

   Note that if a document is submitted for review to the IESG, and at
   the time of submission some early allocations are valid (not
   expired), these allocations must not be considered to have expired
   while the document is under IESG consideration.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA will continue to register approved early allocations as
   described in this document, requesting IESG-designated expert
   approval when the registry requires it; track and report expiring
   early allocations; and initiate the early allocation renewal process.

5.  Security Considerations

   It is important to keep in mind that denial-of-service attacks on
   IANA are possible as a result of the processes defined in this memo.
   There are two that are immediately obvious: depletion of code space
   by early allocations and process overloading of IANA itself.  The
   processes described here attempt to alleviate both of these potential
   attacks, but they are subject to scrutiny by IANA to ensure that they
   work.  IANA may at any time request that the IESG suspend the
   procedures described in this document.



Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document
   could be used as an end-run around the IETF process to achieve code
   point allocation when an RFC will not be published.  For example, a
   WG or a WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for
   a protocol extension for a particular company or for another
   Standards Development Organization even though it might be predicted
   that an IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is
   documented.  The requirement for AD consent is an important
   safeguard, and ADs with any concerns are strongly recommended to
   escalate the issue for IESG-wide discussion.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis]
              Baber, A. and S. Tanamal, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
              Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-00, 21
              October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-00>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Thank you to Kireeti Kompella, Alex Zinin, and Michelle Cotton for
   authoring RFC 4020 and RFC 7120.  Thanks to Kim Davies for his help
   in revising this edition.

Authors' Addresses

   Amanda Baber (editor)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   PTI/ICANN
   12025 Waterfront Drive
   Los Angeles,  90094
   United States of America
   Email: amanda.baber@iana.org


   Sabrina Tanamal (editor)
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   PTI/ICANN



Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            November 2025


   12025 Waterfront Drive
   Los Angeles,  90094
   United States of America
   Email: sabrina.tanamal@iana.org















































Baber & Tanamal            Expires 10 May 2026                  [Page 8]
