Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

Perhaps what we should do is to ask IANA to amend their web page so that when
you go to the protocol registry, that massive page with hundreds of entries with
a brief explanation at the top, the top includes the definition of 'unassigned'
from RFC5226, with a reference to RFC5226 and a note to the effect that obscure
terms like FCFS, Standards Action are also defined there.  Then noone could
claim ignorance if they squatted on an unassigned code point, their behaviour
would be knowingly malicious.

A bit like 'Note Well' which means that noone can claim that they did not know
what they were doing when they were granting us the right to use their text.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>; "Spencer Dawkins"
<spencer@wonderhamster.org>
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>; "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
<hallam@gmail.com>; <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
> Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>; "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
> <hallam@gmail.com>; <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:02 PM
>
> On 2011-1-18, at 15:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing
the
> phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment".
>
> Exactly.
>
> <tp>
> Which, presumably, would be in a BCP updating RFC5226 which only allows for
>
>   Private Use:
>   Experimental:
>   Reserved:  Not to be assigned.
>   Unassigned: Unused and available for assignment via documented  procedures.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> </tp>
>
> Lars
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf