Re: WG Last Call on IANA Considerations (was Re: [Idr] IDR WG Minutes)

Yakov,

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:06:08AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> What is the rationale for having one range for the IETF Consensus
> policy and another range for the FCFS policy ?  In other words, why
> not have just a single block from which IANA could allocate
> either based on the IETF Consensus or on the FCFS policy ?

Just for list reference, we haven't really changed the classes of
allocations we'd be allowing.  We're tweaking the ranges.

As to why we'd want those particular classes, here's my opinion:

We want a range that says, "Here's what IETF wants".  It implies 
organizational "support" for a given mechanism.  This is the IETF
Consensus range.

We want a range that says, "If you want to do something that uses
this mechanism but don't want to get full 'IETF buy-in'", there's
another range.  This is the FCFS range.

We want a range for private experimentation.  This range has a strong
implication that "do what you want here, it probably wont work with
someone else".  This is the private range.  

I think your question is why have blocks at all?  IMO, we want to 
set aside space so that IETF has room to grow in the (unlikely) case
that FCFS gets exhausted too quickly.  It's a shared playground and
there's a limited number of marbles to give away.

> Yakov.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr