Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

>>> Yes, a poll is useful. I have no idea who would "own" that process, or
>>> where that info would be maintained. 
>> Hence my suggestion of an Informational RFC that could be revised now
>> and then.
> 
> I think that writing RFCs - informational or not - that are known to be
> useless in a short timeframe isn't productive.

Agreed. However, I don't think this would be the case. Actually, it's
probably a waste of time of those listed in the IANA registry and those
needing the aforementioned information to rehash the same
questions/answers over and over again.



> The IETF is not an operations monitoring organization. However,
> informational docs are a path to that. We should NOT have this be a WG
> effort- at any level - unless it's in conjunction with a status change, IMO.

I don't necessarily share that view. But given the current state of
affairs, such a doc would most likely drive a status change.



>>>>> I'm not saying it's not useful, but I just don't know who should "own"
>>>>> or "endorse" this - the Internet doesn't have a compliance or deployment
>>>>> monitoring function AFAICT.
>>>> It doesn't look good to have all this options assigned that nobody (*)
>>>> knows what they have been used for (if they have ever been used on the
>>>> public Internet).
>>> I agree that IANA can have better info that can indicate what the option
>>> is, and that's easy AFAICT (gather the info, review it in TCPM and on
>> Would they really include a description if there's not document
>> describing the use of such options?
> 
> A few words at best. If not, perhaps it'd be useful to try to describe
> these options in an informational doc they can cite. 

That's the type of doc I was thinking of.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1