[158466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: carping about CARP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Fri Nov 30 13:35:05 2012
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:34:46 -0600
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F61C7CB-6AAD-4E43-A764-4A4C7E438A37@virtualized.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 <hb-nanog@bsws.de> 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
