RE: DRAFT: On the issue of name assignment for identifiers

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

Here is the email from Bob where he suggested it:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU]
>Sent: maandag 27 januari 2003 5:06
>To: bwijnen@lucent.com; iana@iana.org; BRaja@tellium.com;
>sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; zwlin@lucent.com; osama@nortelnetworks.com
>Cc: sob@harvard.edu; braden@ISI.EDU
>Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
>
>
> *> Hi Bert,
> *> 
> *> Yes. It's OK. For the bulk of them that currently does not
> *> have a prefix, I prefer to use "ASON_" as the prefix,
> *> as these are not UNI specific but actually ASON specific.
> *> 
> *> So, e.g., objects 228, 229, 230 can all be prefixed by
> *> "ASON_" if you want.
> *> 
> *> Just as an FYI, if you're distinguishing the ASON from RSVP,
>
>The issue is not distinguishing ASON from RSVP -- that's an apples and
>orange comparison.  The issue is distinguishing extensions made by
>non-IETF standards bodies from those made by the IETF.  From the
>viewpoint of the IETF, it is sort of a surgeon-general's warning that
>this extension has not gone through the normal IETF process.
>
>Maybe ASON is not the right prefix, maybe it should be (?) ITU-T?
>
>Bob Braden
>

In the meantime, the assignments have been made at 
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
without an ITU prefix, so that is good. I guess Bob did
see the pushback on our/some mailing list(s).
As you can see he had a (?) there, so he was not sure either.

Nevertheless, it is probably good to send a statement that
we do not think it is a good idea. Just to have it recorded.

Is this sufficient info for you to complete your email?

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: vrijdag 14 februari 2003 9:29
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: DRAFT: On the issue of name assignment for identifiers
> 
> 
> PROPOSED message.
> Problem: I DID NOT FIND the original message where bob 
> proposed this. And 
> the examples should be real. Someone help?
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
> 
> the IESG has discussed the idea that one should allocate 
> identifiers for 
> RSVP values (or other values) in such a way that the formal 
> identifier 
> includes the name of the source standards organization, such as using
> TEMP_FALURE_ITU instead of TEMP_FAILURE for an RSVP error code.
> (***note*** need the real example!)
> 
> The IESG thinks that including semantics-irrelevant stuff in 
> identifiers is 
> not a slope we want to start down - after all, many 
> identifiers have very 
> many classifications that some could want to include as part of an 
> identifier.
> 
> Calling out in the identifier registry who the sponsoring 
> organization is 
> in addition to where the identifier's semantics is 
> documented, such as 
> saying, for example,
> 
> 100 TEMP_FAILURE                (ITU-T X.gxf)  [RFC 3456]
> 
> is, however, an idea that we think is good, and that we wish 
> to recommend 
> to the IANA.
> 
>                Harald Alvestrand for the IESG.
>