Oh, great...
As Harald noted, draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy is pretty prescriptive
about saying that if we're in conservation mode for a registry, we
also need to be in evasive-action mode ("how do we get more room in
this registry?").
If we are already in conservation mode on IPv6 options, given that it
has taken quite some time to even get to the point that we're at with
IPv6, the proposal in this draft seems entirely appropriate in the
case under discussion.
From the abstract:
any assertions of scarcity to restrict registrations
must be accompanied by a plan for eliminating the scarcity problem,
and that, if such a plan is not possible, to establish criteria for
making decisions that are as specific and objective as possible.
Spencer
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:58 AM
I think as has already been suggested we are having two different
discussions masquerade as one. I obviously can't speak for Robert
but
it
seems to me he is not saying the IESG ought to approve every (or
any)
extension of IP, he is merely saying each should have an option
number
assigned. Why assign a dangerous, harmful protocol an option? For
the
same
reason sex offenders in the US have to register - so everyone can be
aware
of their presence and take the appropriate precautions.
The problem is the really small size of the option type field in IPv6.
There really only are 5 bits available for numbering both the hop by
hop
and the end to end options. That makes for a grand total of 32, of
which
three are assigned by basic IPv6 specs. So, there really are good
reasons to be somewhat conservative with the assignments.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf