RE: IANA assignments

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

Bert,
        Got to say I agree with David on this.  There is a long standing 
issue with IANA assignments for long lived drafts.  We hit this with MPLS, 
GMPLS and now this document.

The way this was resolved in the past was to make a formal request to IANA 
that included specific values and then for implementations to use these 
values until the formal assignment was made.  I think that the request for 
assignment of a specific value (3) got dropped in this case.  If that had 
been made, all would be good.

IMO this is an IANA process issue, but we've been here before (at least 
some of us), and never really resolved anything.  (A simple solution would 
be to reserve values for long lived drafts and formally assign on RFC 
publication or return the values if/when the draft dies.)

Lou

> -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Charlap 
> [<mailto:David.Charlap@marconi.com>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>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.
> >