Subject: Re: Kerberos V5 over TLS and draft-josefsson-krb-tcp-expansion.txt

From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 May 2006 11:30:00 -0400

>The IANA can reject bogus registrations

You keep saying this, but first-come-first-served means the IANA gives a number to _anyone_ who asks for one.  They will not decide which requests are reasonable and which are bogus; they expect the IETF to provide that expertise.  FCFS is appropriate for large-to-infinite spaces with no particular technical issues, like second-level names under .com (so FCFS an industry has been built around it) or PEN's.  For a space this small, where every number describes an extension with significant potential to impact the protocol, you need some review.  

> Has there been any documented

I don't know of any cases where a namespace this small has been allocated on FCFS basis.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:35:10 -0500

> I don't know of any cases where a namespace this small has been allocated on FCFS basis. 

You could ask IANA.

But I agree with Jeff -- we can't teach IANA how to properly handle FCFS
allocation in a namespace this small.  The choice we have is between
expert review, IETF protocol action and IESG approval.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 10:36:16 +0200

"Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]> writes:

> You keep saying this, but first-come-first-served means the IANA
> gives a number to _anyone_ who asks for one.

Right.  My point is that I don't believe anyone will ask for an
allocation without sufficient justification.  It is not like Joe User
will know or care about this IANA registry.

However, it seems clear that I have not managed to convince you or
Nico, and it seems we aren't ready to change positions.  If nobody
else has an opinion, keeping the IANA policy as-is ("IESG Approval")
thus seems appropriate (unless there are other suggestions?).

If there is no more discussion, I would consider the IANA policy issue
closed.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:32:16 -0400

> expert review, IETF protocol action and IESG approval.

I have argued for protocol action in the past but will be willing to
accept either IESG approval or expert review.

Jeffrey Altman