Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ... policy amendments?

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 08 April 2010 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999A93A6810 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FviImuaz9aRo for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053753A67AF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o38ETAg8010997; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:29:28 -0500
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:28:27 +0300
Received: from mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.48]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:28:27 +0300
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o38ESQQ2023227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:28:26 +0300
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-8-371899919; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB4EEF7.9030503@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:27:55 +0300
Message-Id: <693C2F76-D603-4746-A676-D82B0559F649@nokia.com>
References: <201004011207.OAA28159@TR-Sys.de> <21169863-7EB5-4A36-AEAD-59A8AA543BAF@nokia.com> <4BB4EEF7.9030503@gmail.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:28:00 +0300 (EEST)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2010 14:28:27.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0CF7C00:01CAD727]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ... policy amendments?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:29:53 -0000

Hi,

On 2010-4-1, at 22:07, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The IESG can already *approve* TCP option numbers (not assign).  The IESG
> is a functionary body, not an assignment body.  We deliberately split the
> responsibilities long ago.

correct. Sorry for being sloppy with my wording.

> Note that the IESG does not "architect", it doesn't "design", nor does it
> *evaluate* designs.  It is merely a coordinating body.

Please re-read RFC2026. The IESG is not merely a coordinating body.

> So, the work flow (as documented) is supposed to be:
>  1) IANA receives request.
>  2) promptly forwarded to IESG (1 working day maximum).

I agree that this took longer than necessary. I disagree that one working day is a reasonable deadline.

>  3) IESG takes action at its next meeting (14 calendar days maximum).
>  4) If there's not enough information (*not* a problem in this case),
>     then ask for more details....

Because the IESG isn't merely a coordinating body, an action takes some time. Especially if it involves reviewing an at least moderately complex proposal that doesn't come from an IETF WG and that requires soliciting external opinions from TCP, DNS and security experts. I will also freely admit that I personally prioritize the processing of IETF documents over dealing with independent submissions.

Lars