RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

David B. Nelson writes:

> 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.  

Since we're tripping the light fantastic here, the expert review process
falls apart with more than a few entries anyway (if there were only a
million port types it would take more than a month to _scan_ them @ 1/sec.,
8 hrs./day).  In fact, it may fall apart at 35, since a NAS-Port-Type was
assigned for PHS (AKA PIAFS) in RFC 2865...

...



--
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/>