Masataka, Joe and Bob,
I think we agree even if my wording was ambiguous: the community should define 'what to do' with those 'any *' IP protocols that are not specified anywhere. And the definition could be "do not use" but follow the process to get a new IP protocol with some 'fences' to avoid wasting the remaining 42% of those IP protocol numbers.
=> the current 'ambiguous' situation does not seem too good to me
-éric
On 30/09/2019, 12:04, "ietf on behalf of Masataka Ohta" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
>> Now, it would nice to have a volunteer to write a document to
>> finally document those “Any bla” protocol number by putting common
>> sense restrictions/constraints on them (protocols 9/IGP, 61/host
>> internal, 63/local network, 68/distributed FS, 99/private
>> encryption scheme, 114/0-hop).
>
> For the same reasons Bob mentions, I think this isn’t needed.
>
> We don’t need to encourage playing with these code points for
> experiments; better a protocol designer go through the
> standards-track process, at which point they can either use one of
> these codepoints or get a new one.
I don't think we need a document either, but, to clarify who
choose the actual protocol (not IESG, nor protocol developers),
the following footnote in the IANA page may be helpful:
The actual protocol used with the number is determined
at the discretion of local administrator as long as
the protocol is locally unique.
Though it may make wireshark developers unhappy, it was the
intention of IANA.
Masataka Ohta
