pasi.ero...@nokia.com [mailto:pasi.ero...@nokia.com] writes:
> Glen Zorn wrote: > > > Ok, so now I'm totally confused. None of the examples you cite are > > IANA registries & I would have no problem w/Cisco handing out > > numbers for their proprietary protocol, but that's not what they're > > doing. What they're doing is establishing an _IANA registry_ but > > retaining a significant portion of that registry under proprietary > > control, presumably expecting IANA to publish numbers at their > > behest. Are you saying that's OK? > > Ah -- my understand was that Cisco is not expecting IANA to publish > anything at their behest; IANA will just mark 11-63 as "Allocated for > Cisco", and if Cisco wants to use any of those numbers, they don't > need to tell IANA. > > Or in other words, I thought IANA would operate the registry just like > any other IANA registry with "Specification Required" policy, except > the free values are 64-255. Hmm. OK, that's not an unreasonable interpretation but in that case I don't understand why 1) the first 10, 3, whatever numbers are doing in the registry at all, since their status as proprietary allocations are just the same as the next set & 2) why the document doesn't just say that the range is reserved. "Managed by Cisco" implies to me that Cisco plans to allocate the number themselves (presumably as a convenience & to avoid the pain (embarrassment?) of publishing an RFC every five minutes), then advertise them using IANA. Since I've been wrong before, though ;-), I'd be interested in hearing from the authors on this subject. ... _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
