>I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant, >change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away >a precious resource such as a protocol number for secret >usage. I also agree that the change is appropriate. However, I am also aware of significant frustration being voiced with respect to the speed by which the expert review process moved -- and this change could slow it further. It's worth keeping in mind that the IETF has no power to prevent people from using unallocated protocol numbers. For example, see: http://kerneltrap.org/node/2873 Quoting from Ryan McBride: "The IANA has a heavily bureaucratic process for getting official number assignments. There are essentially two options for getting a protocol number assigned: The first is to run your protocol through the IETF on a standards track. This avenue is closed to us - the IETF has become monopolized by large corporate interests, and they have no problem with using patented protocols. They're perfectly happy using VRRP, and they won't support another standard. The second path is their proprietary path; you pay for "experts" to review your protocol and if they agree that it requires the numbers you're asking for, you get it. If you look at the list of assigned protocol numbers, this method appears to be the favored one. Getting a number allocation has more to do with having money. Obviously, since we're not a large multinational corporation, we can't afford to take this path. Since they were unable to help us by providing a real alternative, our only option is to simply pick an unused number and go with that." _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf