Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Tue, 18 January 2011 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9675A3A6E98 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:56:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj95-8SvokqX for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C12D3A6D3D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b (cpe-76-182-230-135.tx.res.rr.com [76.182.230.135]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MXane-1Pj7zK3Dp0-00WneS; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:58:41 -0500
Message-ID: <2DE3ADEAB1B54D65ADA8007B79FB4647@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <201101142206.p0EM6XNB027935@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp><06456B13-F9E5-4530-B7E8-7CF7F41000E0@muada.com><AANLkTiksCOABzGAVqrHQzpbyROhMPVR65zsuGVe=Q6Wg@mail.gmail.com><27DB0613-457D-4B99-89B4-D13DC2D7232E@nokia.com> <AANLkTinHxBS7h-Y+=9fAoJgR=Az3jqd6c_bD05+K5_Lt@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:58:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1150_01CBB6E5.7C482520"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:v8TnlAnjJL9PHMk/Ik3iJ8sho2SHqf0pUZDzUUgbwz3 AeDimZVo9nLSIj94otOfDDu9fvP1UuN3cKGzLm8RswB3l1UqAF 0zRnd2jKc1PkZ6b/WUJUZaOo5oGfxKskuR83g3jypRkv3Gskdb JBUcSIIIfiJ0XsTKvZNywBye3PxeFzjOojng1MMhbB99vk7rMb CzYfItvuJEsv7KuTkin5H3XKj2up/9oC7VFoIBjGpI=
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:56:17 -0000

Phillip,

Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing the phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment". 

That made sense to me...

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phillip Hallam-Baker 
  To: Lars Eggert 
  Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoffman@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
  Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries





  On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> wrote:

    Hi,


    On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
    > If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
    > personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.


    that isn't the point of this thread.

    The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage. Squatting on codepoints defeats this goal.



  But it meets the goal of the people squatting. Is there any reason to think that changing the name of the code points is going to make a difference?




    I know of about 5 or so TCP option numbers that are being squatted on at the moment (there are likely more). I've been in discussion with the folks who are squatting, and in all cases the story was either "we were going to ask for assignment but it got forgotten" or "oh, you mean unassigned doesn't mean it's free for the taking?"



  Those sound like excuses to me rather than reasons.


  I am currently applying for a DNS RR code assignment. More than one person involved suggested that we should just assign the RR code ourselves by fiat because they didn't want to wait six weeks for a review.


  My name is on the draft so we have applied for an assignment. But now that six weeks have passed we have a major industry meeting next week that is to discuss the proposal (amongst others) as part of a DNSSEC deployment effort and there has been no response.




    Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the latter.


  I don't see how changing the name is going to affect behavior for the positive here. If you do succeed in confusing people as to which numbers are unassigned and which are not it is going to increase the risk of a collision.




  If five people are experimenting with TCP options and this is not causing collisions, what is the problem?




  -- 
  Website: http://hallambaker.com/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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