Pasi Eronen (pasi.ero...@nokia.com) writes: ...
> > Can I instruct IANA to assign management of numbers in a newly > > created registry to "The Daniel Harkins Trust"? No, probably not. I > > would expect that would generate lots of protests. And justifiably > > so. So let me ask you (as a member of the IESG), why do you think > > it's OK to cede parts of IANA's authority to Cisco Systems, > > Incorporated? > > When a document creates a new number space, it can specify who > administers the numbers. IANA's authority comes from a document > giving it the authority, not automatically. > > IANA has no monopoly in this area, and for a vendor-proprietary > protocol,"The Daniel Harkins Trust" would indeed be acceptable. > Probably most vendor-specific RFCs don't give IANA any part of the > space (i.e., the vendor manages all the numbers) -- this is a bit > different since the range is partitioned, and it's possible to > get a number without the vendor approving. > > We also have a number of IETF protocols where the numbers are not > administered by IANA. Many documents use registries maintained by ISO > or ITU-T. Various documents from the SMIME and PKIX WGs use numbers > from a registry maintained by Russ Housley (as an individual > contributor, not as IESG member) instead of IANA. RPC program numbers > (used in e.g. NFS) are maintained by Sun Microsystems (although > there's ongoing work to move them to IANA). Probably other examples > exist. Ok, so now I'm totally confused. None of the examples you cite are IANA registries & I would have no problem w/Cisco handing out numbers for their proprietary protocol, but that's not what they're doing. What they're doing is establishing an _IANA registry_ but retaining a significant portion of that registry under proprietary control, presumably expecting IANA to publish numbers at their behest. Are you saying that's OK? _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
