Re: Quick question on isakmp-registry.

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <HEEHIJAAIOLDCMKIFMKLIEDJCGAA.iana@iana.org>, "IANA" writes:
>The folks who applied did mention the following
>I-D: <draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-02.txt>.
>
>Hopefully this will become an RFC.
>
>I guess I will go ahead and make the assignments
>unless there are any objections.
>
>I belive to change the procedures a document
>should be written.  Paul Hoffman was working
>on the IPSEC/ISAKMP registries clean-up, maybe
>he would be able to assist?  Just a suggestion.
>


I don't see the relevance of this draft.  In fact, though it defines 
two new message types, it doesn't even have an IANA Considerations 
section.  My question is broader -- there's no document that tells you 
or the IESG how to proceed in this registry.  That needs to be fixed.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:10 PM
>To: IANA
>Cc: Thomas Narten; IESG
>Subject: Re: Quick question on isakmp-registry. 
>
>
>In message <HEEHIJAAIOLDCMKIFMKLCEDHCGAA.iana@iana.org>, "IANA" writes:
>>Thomas or Steve,
>>
>>The IANA has received a request for adding
>>2 new Next Payload Types.
>>
>>As far as I can tell, anyone can add a new
>>Next Payload Type.
>>
>>Just triple-checking to see if this is correct.
>>Any assistance would be great.
>>
>>See below for a previous communication with
>>an author of related document.
>>
>
>
>I believe you're corect, but I wish you weren't...  It looks like that 
>registry was never locked down properly.  That should be either IETF 
>Consensus or Standards Action.  I'm not sure how that is fixed, 
>procedurally, but it should be.
>
>


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)