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

William Allen Simpson <> Thu, 01 April 2010 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E242D3A6898; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.159
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfMVnUg7RBYv; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D5A3A68BF; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk34 with SMTP id 34so1166538pzk.20 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m7Ol0cR+dN/uQbyWIZykgJqk23vYYbg5jPYvuR3cefk=; b=TNgPEhAnHAMkTD6zL0GSVwME839HAEtbagTFYDxBNwNY1jdX40cuF6MgCIJsnKDYym zZxUrQv5ops/XjTmBzxkFuyxM2FFHeAbELS891gCfFf3UUARmOecYvhIN+T1SaCzsCt3 iASFGeILgRtHmhFsDyApn9pRkWRthq17c9K4g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jt5pxVecvn49Wximp6CQ+9//fx7aILzDJ3FvTAfpNiXzrgK+/LzA880gmaI1P/7iQX UWQPkXM1SAO2Afc7wazI2BrDPk2kjun/NWBDTkq7Vntzf6kPwlTkOTj8zQxHzqG0elen NOqrnAJuFNrpVAVqx+5ZemN5ndydGW6VAfDAI=
Received: by with SMTP id z29mr1357350wah.39.1270135285269; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Wastrel.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id 22sm7218783iwn.8.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:21:21 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: " Extensions" <>, Alfred HÎnes <>, Alexander Zimmermann <>, IESG IESG <>
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: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:21:14 -0000

On 4/1/10 9:44 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2010-4-1, at 15:15, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> The only reason that I've bothered putting up the internet-draft is to get
>> official IANA assignments.  I'd sent in the reservation back in November,
>> but IANA refused to send it to IESG for approval without an internet-draft.
>> Unfortunately, IESG has been *terribly* slow to act.
> your request with IANA for the option allocation has been open for a while, agreed.
5 months.

> The ID that IANA asked for before forwarding the request to the IESG was posted by you on March 1. See
That's not how the process is documented.  IANA is supposed to forward each
such request to the IESG.  Then, and only then:

       IESG Approval - New assignments may be approved by the IESG.
             Although there is no requirement that the request be
             documented in an RFC, the IESG has discretion to request
             documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case

Note well: that's a discretion of the IESG, not IANA.

> The Independent Stream Editor has sent it to the IESG for the RFC5742 Section 3 review on March 26, i.e., during the IETF meeting in Anaheim.
The RFC Editor was notified on March 1st, long before Anaheim.

The RFC 2026 process says the RFC Editor has two weeks to consult IESG.
Yet, it took 3 weekly reminders before the ISE notification was even
sent to the IESG!

AFAICT, this is not Neville's fault.  The RFC Editor processing queue isn't
working as externally documented.

> The ID is slated for discussion on the very next IESG telechat on April 8.
Good.  I wasn't notified.

> I fail to see how we're slow. In fact, this is the most aggressive possible schedule.
The IESG was *also* notified on March 1st.  [ #24497]  As you
well know -- you (Lars) refused to put it on the IESG calendar.  You've
forgotten, I have the email....