ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

2011-01-18 07:59:10
Phillip,

Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing the 
phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment". 

That made sense to me...

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phillip Hallam-Baker 
  To: Lars Eggert 
  Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org ; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
  Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries





  On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert 
<lars(_dot_)eggert(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:

    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.



  But it meets the goal of the people squatting. Is there any reason to think 
that changing the name of the code points is going to make a difference?




    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?"



  Those sound like excuses to me rather than reasons.


  I am currently applying for a DNS RR code assignment. More than one person 
involved suggested that we should just assign the RR code ourselves by fiat 
because they didn't want to wait six weeks for a review.


  My name is on the draft so we have applied for an assignment. But now that 
six weeks have passed we have a major industry meeting next week that is to 
discuss the proposal (amongst others) as part of a DNSSEC deployment effort and 
there has been no response.




    Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the 
latter.


  I don't see how changing the name is going to affect behavior for the 
positive here. If you do succeed in confusing people as to which numbers are 
unassigned and which are not it is going to increase the risk of a collision.




  If five people are experimenting with TCP options and this is not causing 
collisions, what is the problem?




  -- 
  Website: http://hallambaker.com/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Ietf mailing list
  Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf