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

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

On 4/1/10 10:01 AM, Alfred � wrote:
> Obviously both exceptions quoted above are not proper matches for your
> case, and so I still do not see the procedural rule on which you have
> based your expectation of exceptional treatment.
> Or did I miss something?
>
Reminder: by that time, earlier Linux code had already been posted for
over a year, incorrectly using option 255.

As noted in my IANA application:

"This will have widespread testing starting on Monday, November 30th ...
with the December Usenix ;login: issue publication."

"There aren't enough experimental options to go around.  I'm already
using 253, and Cisco is apparently shipping a test with 254."


> Sorry: In this case, avoidance of IETF WGs strikes back.
>
[eyes rolling]  The last time I sent a draft through an IETF WG
(RFC-4419), it took roughly 6 years to be published.  Long after
there were multiple interoperable implementations.

If they have a deadline, or are planning on getting anything shipped,
nobody in their right mind goes through an IETF WG anymore.  Especially
not this one....


> I do not want to argue on the final point here, but it looks like in
> this case the IETF (an the IESG) is simply eating their own doggy-food,
> and as shown above, this has nothing to do with ossification of the
> institutions tasked with the execution of the procedures set by the
> IETF.  If the taste of the doggy-food is perceived as being bad, we
> should better try to modify it (i.e. the rule in RFC 2780 -- see my
> previous posting on this thread), and not merely complain about it.
>
> It is generally seen that for major protocols where experiments
> in closed lab environments do not suffice to gain siginificant
> experience before standardization, some rules set by the IETF
> for IANA policy are too restrictive.  The wave of RFCs and drafts
> seen during the last couple of years that aim at making additions
> to IETF protocols easier is a clear indication that in some Areas
> of the IETF the value of experiments and running code is gaining
> back momentum.  For TCP and TLS, that's not the case, for instance.
> It's ours to request and drive change for the rules if they hurt.
>
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt (worn on special occasions)!

   We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
   We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

Sorry, but I've already gone through all that (POISED, POISSON), and we
established pretty clear standards of promptness.

But it's good to know "that in some Areas of the IETF the value of
experiments and running code is gaining back momentum."

Thanks for your feedback!