I think that folk should decide where the scope of the IETF starts and ends.
The message I think that the IETF should be sending is 'we own layer 6 and
everything below'. I don't think that many people are really wanting to
perpetrate unauthorized innovations in those layers in any case.
In order to defend layer 6 and below the IETF should surrender all control at
layer 7 and above.
I don't think we can do the second while we still consider port number
allocations to be the prinicpal means of protocol discovery. And to support
machine to machine protocols effectively we require a policy layer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:58 PM
To: paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org;
Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com; john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IANA registration constraints (was: Re:
Withdrawing sponsorship...)
John Klensin,
You wrote:
*>
*> I think real specifications of what the requested parameter will
*> mean and be used for are important. I think there is a
*> difference between registering a parameter for a non-standard
*> specification that is already deployed and in successful use and
*> registering one for a wild idea by one person.
I would note that the purveyors of a "non-standard
specification that is already deployed and in successful use"
must have somehow obtained their own number assignment
without the IANA's help, or this situation could not arise.
And before that specification was successfully deployed, it
may well have been "a wild idea".
There seems to be a logical disconnect here. What am I missing?
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
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