RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation

["David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> ...the difference between uranium-238 and u-235 certainly seems
> subtle to me (what's a couple of neutrons between friends? ;-)
> but is certainly not subtle to a modern physicist...

Sure.  However, if you need U-238, and get mislabeled U-235 by mistake, you
may not be satisfied.

> I wonder how many other people on this list did?

I did.

> In fact, I'm still not sure what, exactly, makes it unique enough
> to require a separate number but (given that there are 3,999,999,965
> of them left) I really don't care.

Would you care if, say a million of so of them were all assigned for "IEEE
Wireless"?  I'd find that horribly confusing.  All I'm looking for is enough
review to make sure that the naming is sufficiently clear such that "caveat
emptor" can reasonably apply.  Truth/accuracy in labeling.  If folks want to
get assignments for their "secret sauce" specialized flavors of ports, I
agree, there is no scarcity issue.  I think there is an accuracy of
nomenclature issue.  I don't think it's fair to require IANA to make that
judgment.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>