Re: Tracking IANA protocol registry changes

"Marco Davids (Private)" <> Tue, 08 November 2016 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2074C1296CB for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:03:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpOeKNWK4ioQ for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:03:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00AE0128B37 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t79so248406375wmt.0 for <>; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:03:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Zy0Rtwpwg+YcKi9h9nYWxz0sh2fsGlqFmRLo03FTg1U=; b=OXGEJhk7aJok/A3pr3GD2MN/c7NYqeBrmku3xiMAnnlWWp1M5fxD4uPpYfUrcVWkYn oK7IROB+W1LSjZ8ZP07ADpx9LB6651yWjH61410zf/8S2RCY5e95A+XS8/1KbRcftGLe k+LYd3cG/2LBnCtcqK2txPXVVooIyYdMiAEqQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Zy0Rtwpwg+YcKi9h9nYWxz0sh2fsGlqFmRLo03FTg1U=; b=RCzn+t8L0Ww1v4oQMuXhwUZ5s2oukgF+9Pn830a4TUi8yl9R5t9hWt/ShiCcGPZR4X aanl6UHGz42pNJpTWiZ+MyuUz2mkTcpELudxbTwqzsJJBl6vak8pVsT/YW27ip9amimh VwTP+9fIFlWr0q871hKGrB3q568P+Kz/4CPEPDRdXrkvr5hBT+i0mYvCfyqLFIoTz2jD wiKoKpYeHb3vuGETkCdDcEIGR9C/wLvaUZ0NK8nosRdxblZVD8bqFAbHKkIyzlhYDVE5 q3j0m2XCZvT/UDhj07+MFtShG3CSl0xdRHAca23MJpkEsFK0+fEZ24zUV5v3U1wHS/Jh 9+7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve7+WG8+vNXTMRzNyOloi4f9oYXvT2X4PmBv7RCdQNOSyQV5Of90ee6tRuJJe+MKw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e188mr12778728wmf.32.1478621012139; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2a00:d78:0:711:4c6b:5782:efc5:dae2]) by with ESMTPSA id r4sm20316183wmb.19.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Tracking IANA protocol registry changes
References: <> <> <E32F9074F35CE01B441F5D46@JcK-HP8200>
From: "Marco Davids (Private)" <>
Organization: ForFun.NET Private Network
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 17:03:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/51.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E32F9074F35CE01B441F5D46@JcK-HP8200>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000202060708070806040003"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:03:36 -0000

On 08/11/2016 14:34, John C Klensin wrote:

>> I would also like to see some visibility into the registries
> Take this up with ICANN -- not an IETF problem.

True. The solution lies with ICANN.

But still; Florian asked an interesting and valid question. The IETF
community should perhaps care about this issue or at least be made aware
of it. It that sense I appreciated the e-mail.

> Out of curiosity, what would you be prepared to pay for
> such services, which would involve both development and ongoing
> costs, however small?  Or are you somehow entitled to free
> lunches?

You're not serious are you?

Please allow me to clutter up the list with an opinion on this:

Free lunches happen to be ICANN's specialty; go ask the folk currently
in Hyderabad. In my mind there must be some room in ICANN's / IANA's
budget to pay for this relatively simple task as well. Frankly I would
say it is a very logical part of their responsibility. After all, they
already publish the protocol registries online. It should be rather
simple to send out a signal with every change or make an even better
system like John suggested.

But you are right, this list is not the right place for that discussion.