Network Working Group                                        W. Townsley
Request for Comments: 3438                                 Cisco Systems
BCP: 68                                                    December 2002
Category: Best Current Practice
        
Network Working Group                                        W. Townsley
Request for Comments: 3438                                 Cisco Systems
BCP: 68                                                    December 2002
Category: Best Current Practice

Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update

第二层隧道协议（L2TP）互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）注意事项更新

Status of this Memo

本备忘录的状况

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.

本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

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

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。

Abstract

摘要

This document describes updates to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) considerations for the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP).

本文档描述了第二层隧道协议（L2TP）的互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）注意事项的更新。

Table of Contents

目录 

   1. Introduction.............................................    1
     1.1 Terminology...........................................    2
   2. IANA Considerations......................................    2
     2.1 Control Message AVPs..................................    3
     2.2 Message Type AVP Values...............................    3
     2.3 Result Code AVP Values................................    3
     2.4 Remaining Values......................................    3
   3. Normative References.....................................    3
   4. Security Considerations..................................    4
   5. Acknowledgements.........................................    4
   6. Author's Address.........................................    4
   7. Full Copyright Statement.................................    5
        
   1. Introduction.............................................    1
     1.1 Terminology...........................................    2
   2. IANA Considerations......................................    2
     2.1 Control Message AVPs..................................    3
     2.2 Message Type AVP Values...............................    3
     2.3 Result Code AVP Values................................    3
     2.4 Remaining Values......................................    3
   3. Normative References.....................................    3
   4. Security Considerations..................................    4
   5. Acknowledgements.........................................    4
   6. Author's Address.........................................    4
   7. Full Copyright Statement.................................    5
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding the registration of values related to the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in [RFC2661], in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].

本文件就[RFC2661]中定义的第二层隧道协议（L2TP）相关值的注册，根据BCP 26[RFC2434]，向互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）提供指导。

1.1 Terminology
1.1 术语

The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration".

以下术语的含义见BCP 26：“名称空间”、“赋值”、“注册”。

The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review", "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".

此处使用以下政策，其含义见BCP 26：“私人使用”、“先到先得”、“专家评审”、“所需规范”、“IETF共识”、“标准行动”。

2. IANA Considerations
2. IANA考虑

L2TP [RFC2661] defines a number of "magic" numbers to be maintained by the IANA. This section updates the criteria to be used by the IANA to assign additional numbers in each of these lists.

L2TP[RFC2661]定义了IANA需要维护的一些“神奇”数字。本节更新IANA用于在每个列表中分配额外编号的标准。

Each of the values identified in this document that require a registration criteria update are currently maintained by IANA and have a range of values from 0 to 65 535, of which a very small number have been allocated (the maximum number allocated within any one range is 46) [L2TP-IANA]. Given the nature of these values, it is not expected that any will ever run into a resource allocation problem if registration allocation requirements are relaxed from their current state.

本文件中确定的需要更新注册标准的每个值目前由IANA维护，其值范围为0到65 535，其中分配的数值非常小（任何一个范围内分配的最大数值为46）[L2TP-IANA]。鉴于这些值的性质，如果注册分配要求从其当前状态放宽，则预计不会有任何值遇到资源分配问题。

The recommended criteria changes for IANA registration are listed in the following sections. In one case, the registration criteria is currently defined as First Come First Served and should be made more strict, others are defined as IETF Consensus and need to be relaxed. The relaxation from IETF Consensus is motivated by specific cases in which values that were never intended to be vendor-specific have had to enter early field trials or be released in generally available products with vendor-specific values while awaiting documents to be formalized. In most cases, this results in products that have to support both the vendor-specific value and IETF value indefinitely.

以下章节列出了IANA注册的建议标准变更。在一种情况下，注册标准目前被定义为先到先得，应该更加严格，其他被定义为IETF共识，需要放宽。从IETF共识中放宽的动机是，在特定情况下，从未打算针对供应商的价值必须进入早期现场试验，或在等待正式确定文件时，以供应商特定的价值发布在普遍可用的产品中。在大多数情况下，这导致产品必须无限期地支持供应商特定价值和IETF价值。

For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be consulted, the responsible IESG Area Director should appoint the Designated Expert.

对于需要咨询指定专家的注册请求，IESG区域负责人应任命指定专家。

For registration requests requiring Expert Review, the Designated Expert should consult relevant WGs as appropriate (e.g., the l2tpext WG at the time of this writing).

对于需要专家审查的登记请求，指定专家应酌情咨询相关工作组（如撰写本文时的l2tpext工作组）。

The basic guideline for the Expert Review process will be to approve the assignment of a value only if there is a document being advanced that clearly defines the values to be assigned, and there is active

专家审查过程的基本指导原则是，只有在提交了明确定义要分配的值的文件且存在有效文件的情况下，才批准分配值

implementation development (perhaps entering early field or interoperability trails, requiring assigned values to proceed without having to resort to a chosen vendor-specific method).

实施开发（可能进入早期领域或互操作性测试，需要分配值才能继续，而不必求助于选定的供应商特定方法）。

2.1 Control Message AVPs
2.1 控制信息

IANA manages the "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs" [L2TP-IANA] name space, of which 0 - 46 have been assigned. The criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should be assigned upon Expert Review.

IANA管理“控制消息属性值对”[L2TP-IANA]名称空间，其中0-46个已分配。分配标准最初是IETF共识。应在专家审查后指定进一步的值。

2.2 Message Type AVP Values
2.2 消息类型AVP值

IANA manages the "Message Type AVP (Attribute Type 0) Values" [L2TP-IANA] name space, of which 0 - 16 have been assigned. The criteria for assignment was originally IETF Consensus. Further values should be assigned upon Expert Review.

IANA管理“消息类型AVP（属性类型0）值”[L2TP-IANA]名称空间，其中0-16个已分配。分配标准最初是IETF共识。应在专家审查后指定进一步的值。

2.3 Result Code AVP Values
2.3 结果代码AVP值

IANA maintains a list of "Result Code values for the StopCCN message," "Result Code values for the CDN message," and "General Error Codes" [L2TP-IANA]. The criteria for Error Code assignment was originally First Come First Served, and the criteria for CDN and StopCCN Result Codes were originally IETF Consensus. Further values for all Result and Error codes should be assigned upon Expert Review.

IANA维护“StopCCN消息的结果代码值”、“CDN消息的结果代码值”和“一般错误代码”的列表[L2TP-IANA]。错误代码分配的标准最初是先到先得，CDN和StopCCN结果代码的标准最初是IETF共识。所有结果和错误代码的进一步值应在专家审查后指定。

2.4 Remaining Values
2.4 剩余价值

All criteria for L2TP values maintained by IANA and not mentioned specifically in this document remain unchanged.

IANA维护的、本文件未特别提及的L2TP值的所有标准保持不变。

3. Normative References
3. 规范性引用文件

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。

[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

[RFC2434]Alvestrand，H.和T.Narten，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。

[RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661, August 1999.

[RFC2661]汤斯利，W.，瓦伦西亚，A.，鲁本斯，A.，帕尔，G.，佐恩，G.和B.帕尔特，“第二层隧道-第二层隧道协议（L2TP）”，RFC 26611999年8月。 

   [L2TP-IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two
               Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661",
               http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters
        
   [L2TP-IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Layer Two
               Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' - RFC 2661",
               http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters
4. Security Considerations
4. 安全考虑

This focuses on IANA considerations, and does not have security considerations.

这主要考虑IANA方面的考虑，而没有安全方面的考虑。

5. Acknowledgements
5. 致谢

Some of this text and much of the format of this document was taken from an internet document on EAP IANA Considerations authored by Bernard Aboba.

本文的部分内容和大部分格式摘自Bernard Aboba编写的关于EAP IANA注意事项的互联网文件。

6. Author's Address
6. 作者地址

W. Mark Townsley Cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road PO Box 14987 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

美国北卡罗来纳州三角研究公园14987号吉特克里克路邮政信箱7025号马克·汤斯利思科系统公司 

   EMail: mark@townsley.net
        
   EMail: mark@townsley.net
7. Full Copyright Statement
7. 完整版权声明

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

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。

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.

本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。

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

上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。

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.

本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。

Acknowledgement

确认

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

RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。