This issue came up originally during my tenure at IANA, and FWIW I concur with David. I have a vague memory of engaging directly with some folks from OpenBSD and letting them know that I was sympathetic with their situation, but IANA has strict rules to follow, and unless they followed procedure my hands were tied.
Re the "industry-money-driven committee" bit, at the time (and in fact, up until recently) I was a FreeBSD committer myself, so if anything I was *more* inclined to be sympathetic to those from the OS community who submitted applications. I can also assure you that we did assign code points to a non-trivial number of open source applicants _who followed the documented procedures_. Doug On 11/30/2012 10:48 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Henning Brauer <[email protected]> wrote: >> and re IANA, they made it clear they would not give us a proto number > > As they should have. IANA abides by the rules laid down for it by the > IETF/IESG/IAB. The openbsd folks couldn't be bothered to even write up a > draft and chose to squat on a protocol number. > >> no matter what; > > BS. If the openbsd folks followed the rules, they'd have gotten the number(s) > they requested (assuming they were justified). There is no grand persecution > here. There is management of a limited resource. > >> we didn't have a choice but to ignore that industry-money-driven committee. > > Which 'industry-money-driven committee' would that be? > > Regards, > -drc
