On 2011-1-18, at 15:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing > the phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment".
Exactly. Lars > > That made sense to me... > > Spencer > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker > To: Lars Eggert > Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM > Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert <lars.egg...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own >> personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken. > > > that isn't the point of this thread. > > The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage. > Squatting on codepoints defeats this goal. > > > > But it meets the goal of the people squatting. Is there any reason to think > that changing the name of the code points is going to make a difference? > > > > > I know of about 5 or so TCP option numbers that are being squatted on at > the moment (there are likely more). I've been in discussion with the folks > who are squatting, and in all cases the story was either "we were going to > ask for assignment but it got forgotten" or "oh, you mean unassigned doesn't > mean it's free for the taking?" > > > > Those sound like excuses to me rather than reasons. > > > I am currently applying for a DNS RR code assignment. More than one person > involved suggested that we should just assign the RR code ourselves by fiat > because they didn't want to wait six weeks for a review. > > > My name is on the draft so we have applied for an assignment. But now that > six weeks have passed we have a major industry meeting next week that is to > discuss the proposal (amongst others) as part of a DNSSEC deployment effort > and there has been no response. > > > > > Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the > latter. > > > I don't see how changing the name is going to affect behavior for the > positive here. If you do succeed in confusing people as to which numbers are > unassigned and which are not it is going to increase the risk of a collision. > > > > > If five people are experimenting with TCP options and this is not causing > collisions, what is the problem? > > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
