RE: IANA assignments

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Charlap [mailto:David.Charlap@marconi.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 6 januari 2004 18:34
> To: IETF CCAMP List
> Subject: IANA assignments
> 
> 
> Today, I was going through the IANA assignements for RSVP 
> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters) and noticed 
> what may be a problem.
> 
> The SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC C-Type 
> (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt) 
> is assigned the value 3.
> 
Actually, if it is on that IANA web page, as it indeed is, then that
means that IANA has already assigned it. 

The internet draft in fact has: TBA (means To Be Assigned).

> This is bad.  The value 3 was already used in some (now 
> expired) RSVP-TE drafts to represent the class-of-service C-Type.
> 
The BAD thing is that someone else (some vendor) has used a value
from some other draft document... and THAT WAS and IS BAD.
If you want to use a value, you better MAKE SURE it is a value that
has been assigned and registered by IANA, that is if it is in IANA
maintained namespace.

> The same problem exists for the SONET/SDH TSPEC.
> 
SAME answer!

> I realize that expired drafts aren't supposed to have an impact on these 
> kinds of decisions, but there are shipping products currently on the 
> market that still use this C-Type.
> 
It migth be good to point out which products did this BAD move.
And which document did they find them in?

> The person responsible for this draft should make sure to choose a 
> different value before the draft becomes an RFC.
> 
I am not so sure I agree.
We should try to not make things break in the market. 
But at the other hand, if we give into this kind of thing, it seems
we might also do away with IANA... and that seems not right to me.

Bert

> -- David
> 
> 
>