Hi,
On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.
that isn't the point of this thread.
The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage. Squatting
on codepoints defeats this goal.
For example, see the TCP option number registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xml#tcp-parameters-1.
The highest IANA-assigned option number is currently 29. IANA assigns
in-order. I happen to know that option number 32 is being squatted on. If IANA
assigns number 32 to some other option, conflicts *will* arise. (There are
several TCP options being developed in the IETF at the moment, so this is not a
constructed argument.)
I know of about 5 or so TCP option numbers that are being squatted on at the
moment (there are likely more). I've been in discussion with the folks who are
squatting, and in all cases the story was either "we were going to ask for
assignment but it got forgotten" or "oh, you mean unassigned doesn't mean it's
free for the taking?"
Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the latter.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf