Hi,
On 06/16/2010 05:58 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Ari,
At 00:43 15-06-10, Ari Keränen wrote:
On 06/11/2010 09:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- 6.1:"[ TBD by IANA; 980 ]"
Does this mean IANA has already picked the number? Or is it a
recommended number? (Pattern repeats for other registrations)
It's a recommended number. Most of the IANA
assigned numbers in HIP are not given
sequentially, so it makes sense to propose a sensible value for IANA.
This recommended number was in a previous version
of the draft since January 26. If you want to
propose a sensible value for IANA, I suggest that
you ask IANA about it before putting it in an
I-D. Once a number is in the I-D, an implementor
may start using it and it can turn into a problem
if IANA assigns a different number.
This is how we have done it with pretty much all the HIP-documents
updating HIP-specific registries, and has worked well so far (I don't
remember any case when IANA had not allocated the proposed value). Of
course this requires that one checks all the active HIP documents and
the IANA reserved values list before selecting a value, and still
there's a non-zero chance for a conflict, but these would be anyway
resolved by IANA once (and if) the document becomes an RFC.
Possibly IANA could have a "pre registration" registry for the values in
drafts, but probably this would just cause more work than resolving the
conflicts (which are uncommon anyway) before the publication. Especially
since the proposed values sometimes change during the lifetime of the
draft, e.g., because a parameter is moved from signed to unsigned
portion of the packet or it becomes a critical parameter.
That said, we can have a look with future drafts if some more
coordination with these allocations is needed.
Cheers,
Ari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf