<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<rfc category="bcp" docName="draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-06" ipr="pre5378trust200902" obsoletes="3228">
 <front>
   <title abbrev="IGMP IANA">IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols</title>

   <author fullname="Brian Haberman" initials="B." surname="Haberman" role="editor">
      <organization abbrev="JHU APL">Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab</organization>
      <address>
        <email>brian@innovationslab.net</email>
      </address>
   </author>

   <abstract>
   <t>This document specifies revised IANA Considerations for the Internet Group Management
   Protocol and the Multicast Listener Discovery protocol. This document specifies the 
   guidance provided to IANA to manage values associated with various fields within the
   protocol headers of the group management protocols.</t>

   <t>This document obsoletes RFC 3228 and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and IPv6 group management protocols.</t>
   </abstract>
 </front>

 <middle>
   <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">

   <t>The following sections describe the allocation guidelines associated with
   the specified fields within the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>
   and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/> headers. Some of these registries
   were created previously, while others are created by this document.</t>

   <t>This document obsoletes <xref target="RFC3228"/> and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and IPv6 group
   management protocols.</t>

   <section title="Conventions Used in This Document">
   <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.</t>
   </section>
   </section>

   <section title="IANA Considerations">
   <t>The registration procedures used in this document are defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

   <section title="Type and Code Fields">
   <section title="Internet Group Management Protocol">
   <t> The IGMP header contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name
	   spaces: Type and Code.  Code field values are defined relative to a specific Type value.</t>
   <t><xref target="RFC3228"/> created an IANA registry for the IGMP Type field. This document updates that
   registry in two ways:
   <list style="hanging">
	   <t>The registration procedure is changed to Standards Action.</t>
	   <t>The reference for the registry is changed to this document.</t>
   </list></t>

   <t><xref target="RFC3228"/> created an IANA registry for Code values for existing IGMP Type fields.
   The registration procedure for the existing registries is changed to Standards Action. The policy for
   assigning Code values for new IGMP Types MUST be defined in the document defining the new Type value.</t>
   </section>

   <section title="Multicast Listener Discovery">
	   <t>As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields. Assignment of those fields within
		   the MLD header is defined in <xref target="RFC4443"/>.</t>
   </section>

   </section>

   <section title="Query Message Flags">

   <t>The IANA is requested to create a single registry for the bits in the Flags
   field of the Multicast Listener Query Message <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/>
   and the IGMPv3 Query Message <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>. The format for the registry is:</t>

   <figure>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   +----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | Resv Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
   +----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | 0        |     E      | Extension   | RFC 9279  |
   | 1        |            |             |           |
   | 2        |            |             |           |
   | 3        |            |             |           |
   +----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
      ]]></artwork>
   </figure>

   <t>The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the E-bit defined in <xref target="RFC9279" />.</t>

   <t>The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field
   requires Standards Action.</t>
   </section>

   <section title="Report Message Flags">
   <t>The IANA is requested to create a single registry for the bits in the Flags
   field of the Multicast Listener Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report Message. The format for the registry is:</t>

   <figure>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | 0         |     E      | Extension   | RFC 9279  |
   | 1         |            |             |           |
   | 2         |            |             |           |
   | 3         |            |             |           |
   | 4         |            |             |           |
   | 5         |            |             |           |
   | 6         |            |             |           |
   | 7         |            |             |           |
   | 8         |            |             |           |
   | 9         |            |             |           |
   | 10        |            |             |           |
   | 11        |            |             |           |
   | 12        |            |             |           |
   | 13        |            |             |           |
   | 14        |            |             |           |
   | 15        |            |             |           |
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
      ]]></artwork>
   </figure>

   <t>The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the E-bit defined in <xref target="RFC9279" />.</t>

   <t>The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field
   require Standards Action.</t>
   </section>

   </section>

   <section title="Security Considerations">
   <t>Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
   monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
   described in this memo.  As new values for the fields are assigned,
   existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
   fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
   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
   attack.  This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the
   Standards Action process ensures) for the assignments whenever possible.</t>
   </section>

   <section title="Contributors">
   <t>Bill Fenner was the author of RFC 3228, which forms a portion of the content contained herein.</t>
   </section>

   <section title="Acknowledgments">
   </section>
 </middle>

 <back>
   <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174" ?>
   </references>

   <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3228" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4443" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9279" ?>
   </references>

 </back>
</rfc>
