Re: IANA assignments

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> The priority here is simple: the *IETF* has asked IANA for assignment
> of a code point; the most reasonable value of that code point *based
> on implementations of the IETF draft/RFC* is 4.

This may well be a correct statement, prior to IANA having made the
assignment. Now that they have published 3 as the "correct" value,
things are no longer so simple.

> The OIF is *not* a standards organization; for the IETF to change
> what is the right decision based on premature actions of the OIF is
> a sign of weakness.  In any case, 'signs of weakness' should NOT be
> our guiding principle -- we should do what is right and reasonable.

This is not about weakness. A fundamental property of assignments is
that they are stable and do not change. Once IANA makes an assignment,
it needs to have very very very good reasons for backing out and
making a change.

> BTW, to put this in perspective, OIF UNI1.0 uses a code point value
> of 4.  If the value of 3 was 'approved' by the OIF for UNI1.0r2, it
> seems to me that the OIF really jumped the gun: the RFC has not been
> published and discussion of code point assignments is not complete.

Actually, the IANA assignment step and RFC publication are
different. The IANA step occurs when IANA announces its assignment
(whether via email, by posting a message, by updating their web pages,
etc.). An RFC can't be published until after IANA makes any relevant
assignments. So even though the RFC may not be out, the code point
assignment has been completed, officially.

> Perhaps the OIF can approve (as soon as we complete the discussion and
> reach the right conclusion) UNI1.0r3 with the correct value.

It would be extremely useful for someone to ask OIF about the
feasibility of this. And to comment on what other organization may
have picked up the IANA-published value at this point.

> I stand by my recommendation that IANA assign a value of 4 for the
> SDH/SONET C-Types for FLOWSPEC and TSPEC.

I think we all agree that would have been the logical assignment.
Problem is, we're past that point now and reversing an assignment is
not so simple.

Thomas