



Network Working Group                                      A. Baber, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Tanamal, Ed.
Obsoletes: 7120 (if approved)                                       IANA
Intended status: Best Current Practice                     February 2026
Expires: 16 August 2026


                    Early IANA Code Point Allocation
                    draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis-01

Abstract

   This document describes the requirements for securing IANA code point
   assignments while IETF Stream Internet-Drafts are still in
   development and, in certain cases, when the lack of an IANA
   allocation would block standards publication outside the IETF.  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 August 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (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.



Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Changes Since RFC 7120  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conditions for Early Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Permanent Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Time-Limited Early Allocation for IETF Stream
           Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Process for Early Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Time-Limited Early Allocation for Standards-Related
           Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

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 proposed
   assignments qualify for registration, 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 is 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.

   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



Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   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.

   Organizations that publish standards outside the IETF ecosystem can
   run into a different timing issue.  The "Specification Required"
   policy described by [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis] requires both IESG-
   designated expert approval and a "permanent and readily available
   public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
   between independent implementations is possible."  Some
   organizations, however, are unable to publish any version of a
   specification until they receive code point assignments.

   This memo establishes early code point allocation procedures for two
   document types: IETF Stream Internet-Drafts in development and non-
   IETF standards nearing publication.  These procedures make
   allocations otherwise prohibited by publication status available on a
   time-limited basis, 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],
   makes two major changes: 1) it creates an early allocation procedure
   for standards-related organizations that need "Specification
   Required" allocations in order to publish finalized specifications,
   and 2) it extends the term of registration for all early allocations
   from one year to two.  It also creates a registry of standards-
   related organizations recognized by the IESG; clarifies aspects of
   the renewal process available to IESG Stream Internet-Drafts; and
   notes that where registries require both document publication and
   expert approval for permanent registration, IANA requests expert
   approval for early allocation as well.

2.  Conditions for Early Allocation

   The term "early allocation" is typically used to refer to the process
   that allows for temporary but renewable assignments from registries
   that would ordinarily require an IESG-approved Internet-Draft, as
   described in Section 2.2.  However, there are two other forms of
   early allocation: permanent allocations from registries that have
   limited or, more often, no publication requirements (Section 2.1),
   and a new process available to standards-related organizations that
   need allocations from IANA in order to publish (Section 2.3).




Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


2.1.  Permanent 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 origin or status.
   (However, registry-specific eligibility criteria may apply, and IESG-
   designated experts may wish to postpone approval until the document
   advances.)  Some "Specification Required" registries also make
   permanent registration available to Internet-Drafts, with expert
   approval.

   Temporary registration from a "First Come First Served" or "Expert
   Review" registry is available only when the registry has its own
   bespoke early allocation procedure, as with the IS-IS process defined
   in [RFC7370].

2.2.  Time-Limited Early Allocation for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts

   The following conditions must hold before IANA can process a request
   for early allocation of code points that would otherwise require an
   Internet-Draft approved for publication by the IESG:

   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 under the following conditions:

       *  The registry does not accept Internet-Drafts for permanent
          registration

       *  If approved by the IESG, the specification will be published
          as an IETF Stream RFC

       *  IANA can obtain expert approval, as described in
          Section 2.2.1.1

   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.




Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   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.

2.2.1.  Process for Early Allocation

   There are three processes associated with early allocation for IETF
   Stream Internet-Drafts: 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."

2.2.1.1.  Request

   The process for requesting and obtaining early allocation of code
   points for IETF Stream Internet-Drafts is described below:

   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 2.2 are met, particularly
       conditions (c) and (d).

   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.







Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   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)."

2.2.1.2.  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 2.2.1.3 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" indicator from the registration.

2.2.1.3.  Expiry

   As described in Section 2.2.1.1, 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.




Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   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.

2.3.  Time-Limited Early Allocation for Standards-Related Organizations

   %% QUESTIONS FOR IANABIS: assuming that the IESG is satisfied that
   the organization qualifies, and the expert believes that all other
   registration criteria have been met, what needs to be true of an SDO
   spec in order for it to qualify for early allocation?  Our
   understanding is that this process is meant only to break a deadlock
   where the SDO can't publish until they have values.  RFC 8392 solves
   this by saying, "to allow for the allocation of values prior to
   publication, [its] Designated Experts may approve registration once
   they are satisfied that such a specification will be published."

   1.  Should we simply say that the experts can approve if they're
       satisfied that the document will be approved within a single non-
       renewable two-year early allocation period?

   2.  Are there other criteria that should be considered/described
       here?

   3.  Should these registrations be renewable?  (Presumably, if a
       registration were to expire, the same codepoints could be
       registered by the organization at a later date, if the expert
       agrees, as they could for IETF Stream early allocations.)

   PROPOSED TEXT:








Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   If a standards-related organization needs one or more codepoints from
   a "Specification Required" registry in order to publish the required
   specification, and the IESG-designated expert is satisfied that the
   document will be published within two years, the expert can recommend
   a non-renewable two-year early allocation.  The allocation will be
   marked as temporary in the registry, with an expiration date.

   Registrations of this type are available only to organizations listed
   in the "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" registry
   described in Section 3.  If the organization has not been registered,
   IANA will ask the IESG for permission to add the organization to the
   registry.

   If an early allocation expires before the document can be published,
   the expert will determine whether the allocations should be marked as
   "deprecated," marked as "obsoleted," left in place with the original
   expiration date, or deleted (in which case any registered value would
   be returned to the pool of assignable values).

   The expert, rather than IANA, is responsible for tracking whether the
   document has been published.  However, IANA will track the
   allocation's expiration date and, if necessary, contact the expert
   for handling instructions.

3.  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.

   %% QUESTION FOR IANABIS: We believe that 1) the new registry of
   standards-related organizations should be added to
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/iesg-recognized-organizations, where
   we keep the registry of organizations that have registered standards-
   tree media types, and 2) the registry group at that URL should then
   be renamed "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations," which
   should probably be the name for the registry itself.  Our question
   is: should we create a new registry of standards organizations or
   modify the existing one created for media types by RFC 6838?  (If
   they're separate registries, we assume that we won't be pre-
   populating the current registry with entries from the existing one.)

   POSSIBLE TEXT:

   OPTION 1 (new registry): IANA will change the name of the registry
   group at https://www.iana.org/assignments/iesg-recognized-
   organizations, which currently refers only to media type



Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   registrations, to "IESG-Recognized Standards-Related Organizations,"
   and create a registry of the same name at that location.  The
   registration procedure will be "IESG Approval"
   [I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis], and the fields "Organization Name" and
   "Reference."  The registry will initially be empty.

   OPTION 2 (repurposing RFC 6838 registry): IANA will change the name
   of the "Standards-related organizations that have registered Media
   Types in the Standards Tree" registry created by [RFC6838] to "IESG-
   Recognized Standards-Related Organizations" and list this document as
   an additional reference for it.  Organizations considered by the IESG
   to qualify for standards-tree media type registration, as described
   by [RFC6838], will continue to be added to this registry.

4.  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.

   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.

   %% QUESTION FOR IANABIS: do we need text concerning the new
   standards-related organization procedure?  If so, can the WG supply
   it?

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References








Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            Early IANA Allocation            February 2026


   [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>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7370]  Ginsberg, L., "Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
              Registry", RFC 7370, DOI 10.17487/RFC7370, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370>.

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





Baber & Tanamal          Expires 16 August 2026                [Page 10]
