On 7/1/2016 11:20 PM, David Mazieres wrote: > So from my limited experience, it seems like one is supposed to ask IANA > for a specific number to which they reply yes or no, rather than asking > them to choose the number. You can (but aren't required to), but that isn't part of the doc. It's typically part of the out-of-band info in the request to IANA.
> I was hoping that since we say you MUST NOT > implement 69, this would satisfy the objections to option kind > squatting. So then what number might you ask for? You've effectively poisoned the well for 69. IMO, you ought to either use that or some other number on which others have squatted ;-) But that's not a decision to include inside this doc (see above). > (Michael Scharf did at one point suggest he would be okay > with the statement, "This protocol specification MUST NOT be implemented > prior to assignment of a TCP option kind number.") That's a hollow statement if you are planning on testing this code while you're writing the spec. The correct answer (IMO) is to use an ExID with the experimental option in this doc until a value is assigned by IANA. ExIDs are FCFS assigned with low hurdle. > But if it's better to use a symbolic constant like ENO, we can do that, > too. That has always been the convention and is what many of us have been asking you to do for YEARS, FWIW. ;-) Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
