Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 08 March 2010 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBDF3A6AE3 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SYbE-Dpk15z for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EF13A6AAF for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o28IYScj015824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:34:28 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred ? <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA63E21230CB20FBC56DAC83B"
X-MailScanner-ID: o28IYScj015824
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:35:28 -0000


Alfred ? wrote:
> draft-ogud-iana-maintenance-words should be considered as a base
> for adding 'status' information to other IANA registries as well.

This document confuses IANA with a compliance organization.

IANA maintains registries, and provides information on the status of
those registrations where used to maintain the registry.

A compliance site may be useful, but I don't think it's in IANA's
charter. *Some* of the words in this doc may be useful, but need to come
out of some assessment of a standard - it's not possible to look at
individual components of a standard and make these decisions.

The two questions that result are:
	- who makes the assessments in the doc?
	- where is that info maintained?

We have had docs that occasionally provide roadmaps in a general sense,
but this is much deeper into what a compliance organization would
recommend for implementations, and seems out of scope for even the