Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

Robert Raszuk <> Tue, 14 March 2017 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A478912997C for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R-ePnhJ8TBRC for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98554129993 for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y76so257862854qkb.0 for <>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=YaTqqZzPifDgVr2iVjmH3XJEIZ8OS9hREDLnPdafgfw=; b=lKvXzsO+a+O17p70bMYaQG2zg2+fkm+dwMYWNJy/3fn69KUarJjiwjD/JryfSvMmru FYVgmGIc3SEvQrPiFyDnY6pIXom+G05q9sU3jO0+npGxH3gcB9/Oa8o/oTTrLRv+c5eN skRj+Q7YfOnlOMbDX67PFi72AG7ef6uR+R+Z4pQQSs+0ibRlBMcbcd4nYK5QomykZWqD Jxj8IcGnp8vgnJQLZ3fgtjBea7oOsLyPELadJZG5FaRI+jNyPDNOW1SZDBbKPv/shUlE BpquS4EEug/KNcMbv5DmGwYd09l62ertsKRyEftJkx0/gGO/wOB5XEC78UxbtMyOG8JS dKUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YaTqqZzPifDgVr2iVjmH3XJEIZ8OS9hREDLnPdafgfw=; b=SqLn2GyFqp07cvlupaq82XDENA7lskyxpG3CNaoJ3qmN08hmBxd4l+7SCSTjUVyjG/ nfUABkD5Cbm5mrzvpZ+ONhDNYi1ELLWoaDhnalVVkcEOxztwsKEWKOqN7opLeJiipBNP 32x0fmeFmrXYI3JQ+3qqPmXStn7VZO+c2qR+D9i5+0/cnkNihcrrh4yKNqdtDnNxu8eA CJXxERw/Gw5Ebtd2s5zMozj/9idLs2amdbD6egv5UINlWwPwzvInKXp6xuJnhAsQcA3H aLbbDNPsRNGX4KNiRvCvdlrtwt7EkClTj0ZcHK+9DsA6LUwwJACWwh8KrF8QiXpBsmoz 3RoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1ZPcTZBJqKt6jL4zBJBqLEZzeD765Mu0dq3YDhqRoeWY1ENio9f6LmI0+16qGpRfSj8eyjCWQd1wpgRw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g63mr37332729qkh.18.1489523672710; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$> <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:34:32 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 10z6PttFxW4YwNLxsrFicalDKec
Message-ID: <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>
Cc: Susan Hares <>, Adrian Farrel <>, idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147734a65924a054ab6c1c9"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:34:36 -0000

I very much agree with Eric here.

All what needs to be done to prevent squatting is a public wiki page in
IETF (across WGs) with pool of available BGP attribute code points as well
as AFI/SAFIs where whoever has a draft and is implementing it ahead of IETF
politics takes next available code and links it with a draft name. Then she
or he may come to WG with proven implementation at hand.

By default considering how fast IETF moves such self registration could be
valid for 5 years. After that either the spec is dead and it is ok to free
up the code or draft becomes RFC. Submitter can free up the code earlier

All committees, designated experts, tiger/design teams will just have
opposite effect and granted will scare folks who need to implement
something for their internal use or for their dedicated customers resulting
in much more squatting. Does anyone really believes that if "expert" tells
 "NO" then the given implementation will get abandoned ?

The same should apply to other protocols .. however BGP is the lowest
hanging fruit so one could start with that.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Eric C Rosen <> wrote:

> I don't think we need any more procedural hurdles that will slow down the
> allocation process or that will introduce more politics into it.
> The draft does not seem to be a solution to any problem, it just adds
> process and politics.  It claims to have the goal of "increasing the pace
> of early allocation", and proposes to do this by requiring allocations to
> be approved by a committee of WG chairs or other designated "experts".  It
> neglects to say how having more committees will increase the pace.
> No doubt the designated experts will make their decisions "soon", as that
> term is defined in draft-farrel-soon.
> Adoption of this draft will result in more squatting rather than less.
> Furthermore, a number of the mentioned registries were not established by
> the IDR WG, and I don't see that the IDR WG has any standing to request
> changes in the registration policies of those registries.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list