Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

Jari Arkko said:

"> McBride never said so. He said you have to pay experts for the
> reviews.

Right, but that's not needed either. At least not if we are
talking about a registry that has policy Expert Review.
If an expert exists, he will be polled by IANA for an opinion.
If an expert is not assigned for the particular registry, IANA
will ask IESG to assign one."

Here is a different take on what happened: 

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Address_Redundancy_Protocol  :

"From OpenBSD.org:

As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body 
regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for 
CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to go 
through an official standards organization. Consequently we were forced 
to choose a protocol number which would not conflict with anything else 
of value, and decided to place CARP at IP protocol 112. We also placed 
pfsync at an open and unused number. We informed IANA of these decisions, 
but they declined to reply.

The reason for this is that no specification for CARP has ever been 
written. The closest thing to specifications is the implementation in 
OpenBSD.

Note that VRRP also uses IP protocol 112, having been assigned it by 
IANA."

See also:
http://archives.devshed.com/forums/networking-100/carp-1500297.html

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