Re: [Anima] Need WG input: Adam Roach's comment on GRASP

Leaving the registry for later sounds fine to me, in particular if it isn’t clear yet what the registration policy should be.

If we ever add not-over-IP “transports”, there might be a need for experiments before we go registering.
So I would probably identify a range of numbers that are strictly reserved for use in experiments.
(This needn’t be very small; say, 65280 to 65535.)

Grüße, Carsten

> On May 29, 2017, at 04:51, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23/05/2017 10:40, Adam Roach wrote:
> ...
>> The CBOR definition has constants for IP_PROTO_TCP and IP_PROTO_UDP, but
>> no way to register additional values with IANA. This does not seem
>> future-proof.
> 
> Adam is correct. The current values (6 and 17) are of course values from
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
> and the names are those used in the socket API. If we wanted to add, say,
> SCTP it would be easy: IP_PROTO_SCTP = 132.
> 
> The problem comes if we want to add "transport" protocols that aren't
> directly over IP: things like HTTP, COAP, QUIC... for example. There's
> no registry for them.
> 
> We have considerable flexibility thanks to CBOR; for example, as Michael
> Richardson noted, we could define values >255 for transport protocols that
> are *not* directly over IP. However, that would need a new IANA registry.
> 
> Proposal: Note in the text that the current values are taken from the
> existing Protocol Numbers registry. Also note that if values are required
> in future that are not in that registry, a new registry for values >255
> will be created. So IANA doesn't have to do anything now.
> 
> Opinions? Objections?
> 
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 