Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:32:58 -0800 (PST)

Jari Arkko said:

"> McBride never said so. He said you have to pay experts for the
> reviews.

Right, but that's not needed either. At least not if we are
talking about a registry that has policy Expert Review.
If an expert exists, he will be polled by IANA for an opinion.
If an expert is not assigned for the particular registry, IANA
will ask IESG to assign one."

Here is a different take on what happened: 

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Address_Redundancy_Protocol  :

"From OpenBSD.org:

As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body 
regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for 
CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to go 
through an official standards organization. Consequently we were forced 
to choose a protocol number which would not conflict with anything else 
of value, and decided to place CARP at IP protocol 112. We also placed 
pfsync at an open and unused number. We informed IANA of these decisions, 
but they declined to reply.

The reason for this is that no specification for CARP has ever been 
written. The closest thing to specifications is the implementation in 
OpenBSD.

Note that VRRP also uses IP protocol 112, having been assigned it by 
IANA."

See also:
http://archives.devshed.com/forums/networking-100/carp-1500297.html

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:21:39 -0800

> Here is a different take on what happened:

...

There are all sorts of takes on what happened.  What I was told at the
time was that the CARP developers picked protocol 112 specifically to
interfere with VRRP, to get back at the IETF for not accepting their
anti-patent position and to show the IETF how irrelevant they were.
My impression was always that the various other stories were
fabricated to cover up that decision.

  Bill

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:30:54 +0200

Bill, Bernard,

Fascinating stories. My take is that we should take the document
under consideration forward. Independently of that I want
to look into the particular case and see if something can be
done (e.g., the bsd folks asked to submit a description of their
protocol; registries and collisions corrected). But I'll take
that off this list.

Jari