[Idr] Anti-squatting Re: Thoughts on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

John

Should we be - well we should be IMO - asking IANA to make it clearer?

Go to
http://www.iana.org/protocols
and you get the impression that fill in a form and the assignment is on
its way; which in some walks of life it is.

I think we should be saying on that page that updates to registries
require the following of a procedure, varies with the registry but will
involve action by the IETF.  We don't want to put people off except when
they are squatting when we do.

The current front matter deals with creating a new registry - see RFC
5226 - but not with assigning new entries in an existing registry.

One for leibacotton I think.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:28 PM


I've already brought it up with them and I expect they'll be correcting
it. No involuntary restraints or decomposing food were required. They're
all new authors so presumption of good intent is indicated (not that it
ever isn't, absent evidence to the contrary).

Thanks for bringing it up.

--John

On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:20 AM, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
...
> A propos of which,
>
> draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-00
>
> squats on four values in 'BMP Statistics Types' and, although not
> mentioned in IANA Considerations, redefines a bit  in BMP Peer flags.
>
> The GROW WG appears not to have a procedure to deal with this.  Should
> we take the authors,
>
> T. Evens
> S. Bayraktar
> M. Bhardwaj
> Cisco Systems
> P. Lucente
> NTT Communications
>
> tie them to a stake in the foyer and throw rotten eggs at them?
>
> Tom Petch