Re: [nfsv4] draft haynes-nfsv4-versioning: Issues relating to opcode assignments etc.

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:23:30AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
> I think we need to distinguish a couple of related issues:
> 
>    - How (or by whom) the assignment is made.
>    - When the assignment is made
> 
> I think the issue about which there is likely to be disagreement or
> controversy will be the question of when (i.e. how early) the assignment is
> to be made. My understanding of the connection between these two issues is
> as follows:
> 
>    - If the assignment is to be made when the RFC is published, then we
>    could implement IANA-based assignment by creating one or more registries
>    with a "specification required" assignment policy.  However, this could be
>    complicated to do, although it is relatively simple if you just do it for
>    operations.  The big issue is that doing this doesn't buy you anything (see
>    below for a discussion of this).
>    - If the assignment is to made earlier than that (e.g. when the document
>    becomes a working-group document as suggested in the current draft), it
>    isn't clear how to specify an assignment policy that IANA would accept.

There are a number of allocation policies that you can use.  Having a
Protocol Action from the IESG is not the only way.  You can have a
first-come-first-served-with-Expert-review process, which is what I
would recommend for any namespaces large enough that you're not going to
worry about running out.

Nico
--