You might notice that it's considerably more difficult to get approval
for new IP and TCP options than it is to get a port assignment.
No it's not. When I needed one 2 years ago, I asked for and was assigned one.
TCP Option Number 24, "SNAP".
Here's the current policy:
From RFC 2780, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol
and Related Headers", published March 2000:
for IP options:
] 4.5 IPv4 Option Type field
]
] The IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Option Type name space
] following an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action
] process.
for TCP options:
] 9.3 TCP Option Kind field
]
] Values in the Option Kind field are assigned following an IESG
] Approval or Standards Action process.
for ports:
] 8. IANA Considerations for fields in the UDP header
]
] The UDP header [UDP] contains the following fields that carry values
] assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port.
]
] Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
] Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
] Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
] Action process. Note that some assignments may involve non-
] disclosure information.
]
]
] 9.1 TCP Source and Destination Port fields
]
] Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
] Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
] Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
] Action process. Note that some assignments may involve non-
] disclosure information.
So I stand by my statement. Ports can be allocated using Specification
Required, while Options require at least IESG approval.
Keith