On 1/14/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2011-1-13, at 22:43, Michelle Cotton wrote:
Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry
what is available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out
soon (for those registries with a finite space) will be small
charts showing how much of the registry space is unassigned,
assigned and reserved (utilizing the unassigned entries).
I mentioned in the past that the term "unassigned" to me at least
doesn't make it sufficiently clear that IANA assignment is often
needed before codepoints may be taken into use. We have several cases
(the many different squats on TCP option numbers, for example) were
people pick unassigned codepoints during development and only later
realize that they should have registered them.
If you want to explicitly list unassigned codepoints in the
registries, I'm wondering if we can find a short phrase that makes it
more clear that an IANA action is normally required - maybe
"available for IANA assignment"?
If IANA *doesn't* explicitly list unassigned codepoints in the
registries, do you think that would make the problem of unintentional
squatting better or worse? I can see it going either way, but you have
probably thought about this more than I.
The unintentional squatting problem might be reduced by a note in every
registry that says "unassigned code points must be assigned by IANA" or
some such wording.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf