Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

On 2011-1-18, at 15:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing 
> the phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment". 
Exactly.

Lars


> 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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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