Glen Zorn wrote: > 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?
Ah -- my understand was that Cisco is not expecting IANA to publish anything at their behest; IANA will just mark 11-63 as "Allocated for Cisco", and if Cisco wants to use any of those numbers, they don't need to tell IANA. Or in other words, I thought IANA would operate the registry just like any other IANA registry with "Specification Required" policy, except the free values are 64-255. (I think this approach, while perhaps a bit unusual, is better than the normal "can't extend the protocol unless vendor agrees" approach.) Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
