Keep in mind that the interview with Mr. McBride was back in April 2004.
The response times back then may not have been great, but IANA has never
charged an applicant for their request for protocol parameters including
port numbers.
IANA response times have greatly improved over the last few years. See:
http://www.iana.org/reporting-and-stats/index.html (Performance Charts)
In cases where experts are used, IANA has a reminder system in place as
well as an escalation process to notify the IESG if an expert is not
responding to IANA.
With regards to the protocol numbers described in
arkko-rfc2780-proto-upate, there are only approximately 115 that are
unassigned in the registry. This is a scarce resource and care should
taken in making assignments. This document does not change much in
actual procedures with the IANA as a protocol number has not been
assigned under NDA for at least 6 years if not longer.
Hope this information is helpful.
Michelle Cotton
Manager, IETF Relations
IANA
------
From: Bernard Aboba <aboba(_at_)internaut(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation
Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant,
change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away
a precious resource such as a protocol number for secret
usage.
I also agree that the change is appropriate. However, I am also aware of
significant frustration being voiced with respect to the speed by which
the expert review process moved -- and this change could slow it
further. It's worth keeping in mind that the IETF has no power to prevent
people from using unallocated protocol numbers.
For example, see:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2873
Quoting from Ryan McBride:
"The IANA has a heavily bureaucratic process for getting official number
assignments. There are essentially two options for getting a protocol
number assigned: The first is to run your protocol through the IETF on a
standards track. This avenue is closed to us - the IETF has become
monopolized by large corporate interests, and they have no problem with
using patented protocols. They're perfectly happy using VRRP, and they
won't support another standard. The second path is their proprietary
path; you pay for "experts" to review your protocol and if they agree
that it requires the numbers you're asking for, you get it. If you look
at the list of assigned protocol numbers, this method appears to be the
favored one. Getting a number allocation has more to do with having
money. Obviously, since we're not a large multinational corporation, we
can't afford to take this path. Since they were unable to help us by
providing a real alternative, our only option is to simply pick an unused
number and go with that."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------- End of Forwarded Message
_______________________________________________
Ietf-iana mailing list
Ietf-iana(_at_)lists(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-iana
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf