Network Working Group                                            M. Rose
Request for Comments: 3349                  Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
BCP: 59                                                        July 2002
Category: Best Current Practice


 A Transient Prefix for Identifying Profiles under Development by the
        Working Groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force

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 (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

  As a part of their deliverables, working groups of the IETF may
  develop BEEP profiles.  During the development process, it is
  desirable to assign a transient identifier to each profile.  If the
  profile is subsequently published as an RFC, then a permanent
  identifier is subsequently assigned by the IANA.

























Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002


Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
  2.  Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
  3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
      References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
  A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
  B.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
      Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
      Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6









































Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002


1. Introduction

  Each BEEP profile [1] is identified by a URI [2].  The BEEP
  specification uses URIs to identify a BEEP profile both:

  o  statically, when a profile is formally defined (RFC 3080's Section
     5.1); and,

  o  dynamically, during channel management (RFC 3080's Section 2.3.1).

  If the BEEP profile appears on the standards-track [3], then the IANA
  is responsible for assigning the URI associated with the BEEP
  profile.  Otherwise, the entity specifying the BEEP profile is free
  to assign a URI under its administration to the profile.

  If a working group of the IETF is developing a BEEP profile, then,
  during the development process, it is desirable to use a transient
  identifier for the profile.  Further, it is desirable that the
  transient identifier be associated with the working group.

  This memo defines the practice for making such an assignment.  Note
  that this practice does not apply to activities outside of working
  groups -- anyone able to assign a URL is capable of defining a URI
  for the purposes of identifying the BEEP profiles that they develop.

2. Practice

  When a working group is formed, the IETF secretariat assigns a brief
  mnemonic prefix to the working group, e.g., "provreg" or "sacred".

  When a working group begins development of a document which specifies
  a BEEP profile, the working group chair assigns a transient
  identifier of the form "http://iana.org/beep/transient/XXX/YYY" where
  "XXX" is the working group's mnemonic and "YYY" is a unique string.
  Although the resulting URI must conform to the URI syntax, the "YYY"
  portion is otherwise arbitrary.  For example, it may contain a sub-
  hierarchy (e.g., "epp/1.0").

  For example,

      http://iana.org/beep/transient/provreg/epp/1.0
      http://iana.org/beep/transient/sacred/pdm

  might be assigned by the chairs of the "provreg" and "sacred" working
  groups, respectively.

  Following this, the working group chair completes a BEEP profile
  registration template, and submits this information to the IANA.



Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002


  Note that although the IETF hasn't established a practice with
  respect to the use of capitalization in URLs employed for namespace
  purposes, the W3C has a lowercase-only policy.  Working group chairs
  are encouraged to consider this when making assignments.

3. Security Considerations

  This document describes an administrative convention and raises no
  additional security considerations.  Of course, each BEEP-based
  protocol has its own set of security considerations, which should be
  described in the relevant specification.

References

  [1]  Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
       3080, March 2001.

  [2]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.

  [3]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
       IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.





























Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002


Appendix A. Acknowledgements

  The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Dan Kohn and
  Bob Wyman.

Appendix B. IANA Considerations

  The IANA maintains a registry of transient identifiers used for BEEP
  profiles under development in the IETF, using the profile
  registration template defined in Section 5.1 of [1].

  Note that unlike the registration procedures defined in Appendix B of
  [1], the working group chair (instead of the IESG) is responsible for
  authorizing the registration.

Author's Address

  Marshall T. Rose
  Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
  POB 255268
  Sacramento, CA  95865-5268
  US

  Phone: +1 916 483 8878
  EMail: [email protected]


























Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3349            Transient IDs for BEEP Profiles            July 2002


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

  This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
  others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
  or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
  and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
  kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
  included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
  developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
  copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
  followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
  English.

  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
  revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

  This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
  TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

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



















Rose                     Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]