Subject: Re: [Idr] SAFI and other codepoint issues

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:36:35 +0200

Jeff,

  Here's my proposal for this particular situation.  As you say, the
current ranges are:
1-63: "IETF Consensus"
64-127: "FCFS"
128-255: "private use"

  However, as you know, circumstances dictated that 2547 be allowed to
continue to use the "private use" number that it was deployed with.
Obviously, a strict adherence to policy would have simply gotten in
the way of having a working protocol.  I'm sure that there will be
other examples of this coming soon.

  The IETF has been working with the IANA since October 2004 to ensure
that the IANA can meet the IETF's needs.  We agreed at that time that,
as an interim goal, IANA should be able to allocate a number from a
FCFS space within 30 days.  They have implemented tracking systems and
hired staff and from what we can tell they are now meeting this goal.
Given this change, it may be more acceptable to use FCFS (or, perhaps,
the RFC 4020 "early allocation" mechanism) for newer work.

Moving forward, I'd like to recommend the following:

- Reclassify 129-239 as "Reserved".
- Retain 240-255 as "private use".
- As needed, register values in the Reserved range if previously-deployed
  protocols come into the IETF.
- Recommend that new developments use FCFS or RFC4020 method to get
  code points
- In the future, if we run out of FCFS or IETF Consensus numbers,
  start using the "Reserved" space as needed.

With respect to this kind of experience:

>: At least in my experience requesting a number from
>: IANA is equivalent to attempting a conversation w/ /dev/null.

I have no doubt that it *was* true, but the new process and planned
assignment progress monitoring system should make it a thing of the past.

  Bill

P.S. In the WG meeting, people asked for a pointer to this agreement
on the IANA site.  There is no such announcement at the moment, but
they have agreed to put one there and I will forward the information
when I get it.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:55:34 -0400

Bill,

> other examples of this coming soon.

Definitely.  One of the proposals is up to SAFI 132.  There may
be others beyond this, but I haven't found any with some quick googling.

> FCFS space within 30 days.

I suspect this will address 2/3 of the problem.

>   start using the "Reserved" space as needed.

This seems very reasonable.

The other half of this effort is the awkward portion.  Working group
chairs need to be aware that things that are best done as FCFS or RFC 4020
should be done that way.  Drafts should be rejected as WG documents 
without getting an appropriate delegation.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies