rfc9778.original   rfc9778.txt 
Network Working Group B. Haberman, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Haberman, Ed.
Internet-Draft JHU APL Request for Comments: 9778 JHU APL
Obsoletes: 3228 (if approved) 27 August 2024 BCP: 57 March 2025
Intended status: Best Current Practice Obsoletes: 3228
Expires: 28 February 2025 Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols
draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies revised IANA Considerations for the Internet This document specifies revised IANA considerations for the Internet
Group Management Protocol and the Multicast Listener Discovery Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and the Multicast Listener Discovery
protocol. This document specifies the guidance provided to IANA to (MLD) protocol. This document specifies the guidance provided to
manage values associated with various fields within the protocol IANA to manage values associated with various fields within the
headers of the group management protocols. protocol headers of the group management protocols.
This document obsoletes RFC 3228 and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and This document obsoletes RFC 3228 and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and
IPv6 group management protocols. IPv6 group management protocols.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 February 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9778.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations
2.1. Type and Code Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Type and Code Fields
2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol
2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery
2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags
2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Security Considerations
4. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. References
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Normative References
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Informative References
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Contributors
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The following sections describe the allocation guidelines associated The sections that follow describe the allocation guidelines
with the specified fields within the Internet Group Management associated with the specified fields within the Internet Group
Protocol (IGMP) [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis] and the Multicast Listener Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC9776] and the Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] headers. Some of these Discovery (MLD) [RFC9777] headers. Some of these registries were
registries were created previously, while others are created by this created previously, while others are created by this document.
document.
This document obsoletes [RFC3228] and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and This document obsoletes [RFC3228] and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and
IPv6 group management protocols. IPv6 group management protocols.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
The registration procedures used in this document are defined in The registration procedures used in this document are defined in
[RFC8126]. [RFC8126].
2.1. Type and Code Fields 2.1. Type and Code Fields
2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol 2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol
The IGMP header contains the following fields that carry values The IGMP header contains the following fields that carry values
assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field
values are defined relative to a specific Type value. values are defined relative to a specific Type value.
[RFC3228] created an IANA registry for the IGMP Type field. This [RFC3228] created the "IGMP Type Numbers" registry for the IGMP Type
document updates that registry in two ways: field. This document updates that registry in two ways:
The registration procedure is changed to Standards Action. * The registration procedure has been changed to Standards Action.
The reference for the registry is changed to this document. * The references to [RFC3228], including the reference for the
registry, have been changed to this document.
[RFC3228] created an IANA registry for Code values for existing IGMP [RFC3228] created the '"Code" Fields' registry for Code values for
Type fields. The registration procedure for the existing registries existing IGMP Type fields. This document updates that registry in
is changed to Standards Action. The policy for assigning Code values two ways:
for new IGMP Types MUST be defined in the document defining the new
Type value. * The registration procedure has been changed to Standards Action.
* The reference for the registry has been changed to this document.
Note that the policy for assigning Code values for new IGMP Types
MUST be defined in the document defining the new Type value.
2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery 2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery
As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields. As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields.
Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in
[RFC4443] with a registration policy of IETF Review. [RFC4443] with a registration policy of IETF Review.
2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags 2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags
The IANA is requested to create a single registry for the bits in the IANA has created the "IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags" registry for the
Flags field of the MLDv2 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and the bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Query Message [RFC9777] and the
IGMPv3 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. The format for the IGMPv3 Query Message [RFC9776]. It has been populated as follows:
registry is:
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ +===========+============+=============+===========+
| Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference | | Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ +===========+============+=============+===========+
| 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | | 0 | E | Extension | [RFC9279] |
| 1 | | | | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | | | | | 1-3 | Unassigned |
| 3 | | | | +-----------+--------------------------------------+
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
Table 1: IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags Registry
The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column
header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and header in the packet format diagrams in [RFC9777] and [RFC9776].
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis].
The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the The initial contents of this registry contain the E-bit defined in
E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. [RFC9279].
The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field requires The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field requires
Standards Action. Standards Action.
2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags 2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags
The IANA is requested to create a single registry for the bits in the IANA has created the "IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags" registry for the
Flags field of the MLDv2 Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Report Message and the IGMPv3
Message. The format for the registry is: Report Message. It has been populated as follows:
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ +===========+============+=============+===========+
| Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference | | Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ +===========+============+=============+===========+
| 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | | 0 | E | Extension | [RFC9279] |
| 1 | | | | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | | | | | 1-15 | Unassigned |
| 3 | | | | +-----------+--------------------------------------+
| 4 | | | |
| 5 | | | | Table 2: IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags Registry
| 6 | | | |
| 7 | | | |
| 8 | | | |
| 9 | | | |
| 10 | | | |
| 11 | | | |
| 12 | | | |
| 13 | | | |
| 14 | | | |
| 15 | | | |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column
header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and header in the packet format diagrams in [RFC9777] and [RFC9776].
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis].
The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the The initial contents of this registry includes the E-bit defined in
E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. [RFC9279].
The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field require The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field requires
Standards Action. Standards Action.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned, described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned,
existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if declines to forward the unrecognized traffic or loss of security if
it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an
attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the
Standards Action process ensures) for the assignments whenever Standards Action process ensures) for the assignments whenever
possible. possible.
4. Contributors 4. References
Bill Fenner was the author of RFC 3228, which provided a portion of
the content contained herein.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]
Haberman, B., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-
3376bis-11, 13 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
3376bis-11>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] 4.1. Normative References
Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11, 13 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
3810bis-11>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
5.2. Informative References [RFC9776] Haberman, B., Ed., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", STD 100, RFC 9776, DOI 10.17487/RFC9776, March
2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9776>.
[RFC9777] Haberman, B., Ed., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", STD 101, RFC 9777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9777, March 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9777>.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group [RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, February 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, February 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC9279] Sivakumar, M., Venaas, S., Zhang, Z., and H. Asaeda, [RFC9279] Sivakumar, M., Venaas, S., Zhang, Z., and H. Asaeda,
"Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and "Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and
Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Message Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Message
Extension", RFC 9279, DOI 10.17487/RFC9279, August 2022, Extension", RFC 9279, DOI 10.17487/RFC9279, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9279>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9279>.
Contributors
Bill Fenner is the author of [RFC3228], which provided a portion of
the content contained herein.
Author's Address Author's Address
Brian Haberman (editor) Brian Haberman (editor)
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Email: brian@innovationslab.net Email: brian@innovationslab.net
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
129 lines changed or deleted 114 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.