Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options

[Brandon Williams <[e-mail]>]

This looks good to me. I also like your suggestion (b).

--Brandon

On 02/19/2013 12:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> PS - we could add the following:
>
> 	16 bits are assigned, but 32 SHOULD be used
>
> 	IANA registration will assign FCFS the first 16 bits,
> 	and record the second 16 bits if provided.
>
> That still leaves the question of squatters and/or collisions that
> request explicit registration.
>
> Clearly, IANA requests should help the applicant choose an unassigned
> codepoint rather than recording a collision. However, if they either
> refuse or didn't contact IANA (i.e., squatter), what should we ask IANA
> to do?
>
> This case comes up in the ports space. There are a few solutions:
>
> 	a) don't record or indicate collisions
> 		i.e., record only the IANA assignments
>
> 	b) record the existence of a collision, but no other info
> 		this helps users debug problems, but
> 		avoids implicit endorsement of squatter usage
>
> 	c) record the collision and all available info
> 		helps debugging the best, and allows
> 		the community to "assign blame", but
> 		might be taken as an implicit endorsement
> 		of squatter usage
>
> I'm in favor of (b) above.
>
> Joe
>
> On 2/19/2013 9:23 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/2013 6:51 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2013 02:56 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> 1. do you agree with change (A)?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. do you agree with change (B)?
>>>
>>> Yes, provided that "OK to indicate multiple assignees" means that the
>>> multiple assignees should all agree.
>>
>> So what if they don't?
>>
>> Or, more specifically, what if they:
>>
>>       - refuse
>>       - cannot be contacted
>>
>> Or should we just say that the IANA list is the 'first to file', and
>> don't really list anything else?
>>
>> Joe

-- 
Brandon Williams; Principal Software Engineer
Cloud Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.