![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Phillip,
My personal view is that we should develop an Internet architecture that allows an infinite number of new protocols to be deployed without consumption of scarce resources, i.e. port numbers of DNS RRs....So in summary, the IAB should be charged with identifying the set of finite resources that IANA assigns and propose an Internet architecture in which deployment of new application layer protocols does not cause any of the finite resources to be depleted.
I'm definitely in favor of improving the situation. And for applications protocols this is probably an easier problem to begin with. And as I said in the previous e-mail, as far as I know, most new work uses field sizes and types that have less scarcity.
However, the Internet runs to a large extent on protocols that were designed decades ago, and some of those protocols have number spaces that are very finite. I don't want to run out of protocol numbers, DHCP message types, etc.
Exactly. There are very tight namespaces where we need to apply pretty strict rules to avoid hitting a brick wall, but nobody can disagree that we should design to avoid creating new brick walls.
But in the namespaces where there is no brick wall, there are nevertheless reasons to be careful. I'd suggest that people should not only look at the text of 2434bis, but also at RFC 4775 and at draft-carpenter-extension-recs-02.txt. Comments on the latter are very welcome.
I don't believe we should do anything that can be interpreted as condoning misappropriation of IANA-assigned values. But I do agree with John Klensin that when something is in actual use, that fact should be recognized, and registered with a factual comment. That helps interoperability even if it offends our formalities.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.