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

>I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant,
>change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away
>a precious resource such as a protocol number for secret
>usage.

I also agree that the change is appropriate.  However, I am also aware of 
significant frustration being voiced with respect to the speed by which 
the expert review process moved -- and this change could slow it 
further.  It's worth keeping in mind that the IETF has no power to prevent
people from using unallocated protocol numbers.

For example, see:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2873

Quoting from Ryan McBride:

"The IANA has a heavily bureaucratic process for getting official number 
assignments. There are essentially two options for getting a protocol 
number assigned: The first is to run your protocol through the IETF on a 
standards track. This avenue is closed to us - the IETF has become 
monopolized by large corporate interests, and they have no problem with 
using patented protocols. They're perfectly happy using VRRP, and they 
won't support another standard. The second path is their proprietary 
path; you pay for "experts" to review your protocol and if they agree 
that it requires the numbers you're asking for, you get it. If you look 
at the list of assigned protocol numbers, this method appears to be the 
favored one. Getting a number allocation has more to do with having 
money. Obviously, since we're not a large multinational corporation, we 
can't afford to take this path. Since they were unable to help us by 
providing a real alternative, our only option is to simply pick an unused 
number and go with that."

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