ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

2011-01-18 08:44:41
Hi,

On 2011-1-18, at 16:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
That would work IF the reason this is happening is that people don't
understand that unassigned means reserved for future assignment.

that *is* the reason, for at least those cases that I have been involved in.

But I rather suspect that the reason that this is happening is that people
know full well that there is a process and choose to ignore it because they
either can't be bothered to put up with the hassle or don't think that the
application will be accepted.

Suspect all you want, but it doesn't match my experience.

SRV code points are an even bigger mess because there isn't even a proper
registry to enter them in.

We're very close to fixing this: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports

I think it is rather more likely that the root cause here goes back to the
fact that the old three track standard process has broken down and the
criteria for acceptance as a PROPOSED standard are now essentially those for
DRAFT.

RFC2026 has almost nothing to do with IANA allocation procedures. (The only 
relation is that some registries require a Standards Action, but even then it 
is irrelevant which level of the standards track the RFC is on. And yes, it's 
somewhat more difficult to have a Standards Action occur than passing the bar 
for the other RFC5226 policies, but then again, few registries actually need a 
Standards Action.)

Lars

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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