





Network Working Group                                        V. Schryver
Request for Comments: 3818                             Rhyolite Software
BCP: 88                                                        June 2004
Category: Best Current Practice


       IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Extensions working
   group (pppext) includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's
   most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against
   further enhancements of questionable value."  In support of that
   charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers
   will no longer be "first come first served."

Introduction

   The Point-to-Point protocol (PPP, RFC 1661 [1]) is a mature protocol
   with a large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other
   extensions.  The main protocol as well as its extensions involve many
   name spaces in which values must be assigned.
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ppp-numbers contains a list of the
   address spaces and their current assignments.

   Historically, initial values in new name spaces have often been
   chosen in the RFCs creating the name spaces.  The IANA made
   subsequent assignments with a "First Come First Served" policy.  This
   memo changes that policy for some PPP address spaces.

   Most of the PPP names spaces are quiescent, but some continue to
   attract proposed extensions.  Extensions of PPP have been defined in
   RFCs that are "Informational" and so are not subject to review.
   These extensions usually require values assigned in one or more of
   the PPP name spaces.  Making these allocations require "IETF
   Consensus" will ensure that proposals are reviewed.




Schryver                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3818              IANA Considerations for PPP              June 2004


Terminology

   The terms "name space", "assigned value", and "registration" are used
   here with the meanings defined in BCP 26 [2].  The policies "First
   Come First Served" and "IETF Consensus" used here also have the
   meanings defined in BCP 26.

IANA Considerations for PPP

   IETF Consensus, usually through the Point-to-Point Protocol
   Extensions working group (pppext), is required for assigning new
   values in the following address spaces:

                PPP DLL PROTOCOL NUMBERS
                PPP LCP AND IPCP CODES
                PPP LCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                PPP CCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                PPP CHAP AUTHENTICATION ALGORITHMS
                PPP LCP FCS-ALTERNATIVES
                PPP MULTILINK ENDPOINT DISCRIMINATOR CLASS
                PPP LCP CALLBACK OPERATION FIELDS
                PPP BRIDGING CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                PPP BRIDGING MAC TYPES
                PPP BRIDGING SPANNING TREE
                PPP IPCP CONFIGURATION OPTION TYPES
                PPP IPV6CP CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
                PPP IP-Compression-Protocol Types

Security Considerations

   This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.

Normative References

   [1] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
       RFC 1661, July 1994.

   [2] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
       Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.












Schryver                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3818              IANA Considerations for PPP              June 2004


Author's Address

   Vernon Schryver
   Rhyolite Software
   2482 Lee Hill Drive
   Boulder, Colorado 80302

   EMail: vjs@rhyolite.com











































Schryver                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3818              IANA Considerations for PPP              June 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.









Schryver                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

