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.hoffman@xxxxxxxx ; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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.eggert@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf