Hi Pasi,
On Thu, February 5, 2009 5:01 am, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
> 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.
So if I want to make a proprietary hack to this protocol I must have
a public specification reviewed by a Designated Expert while Cisco can
make proprietary hacks to their heart's content. And this arrangement is
enforced by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
Where in RFC 5226 does it mention this sort of arrangement?
This whole snafu is because Cisco is abusing numbers assigned by IANA.
They make proprietary hacks to established protocols, claim universal
support for their hacks, and use that claim to get something published
that should never be published.
And we're going to publish a note lamenting the fact that this
happened ("If EAP-FAST were designed today, these difficulties could be
avoided....") while we basically ensure it will happen again!
It's like telling an alcoholic not to drink while you give him a
gift certificate from a liquor store.
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
