Subject: RE: [Hipsec] Base draft & ESP draft: snapshots

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:59:21 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petri Jokela [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:50 AM
> To: Pekka Nikander
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Base draft & ESP draft: snapshots
> > Somewhat relatedly, now that we are proposing that the HIT prefix  
> > would be defaulted back to IANA in 2009, unless the IETF decided  
> > otherwise, perhaps we should do the same for the HIP 
> protocol number  
> > (Section 4?).  If so, an appropriate IANA note should be 
> added to the  
> > IANA Considerations section.
> 
> Do we want to do like this? I haven't yet put it into the draft.
> 

My suggestion would be to ask the Area Directors for some guidance here
(if that hasn't happened already-- I do not know).  In particular, one
of the former ADs has written this draft:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-narten-iana-experimental-alloca
tions-05.txt

If you want, I will volunteer to inquire with Thomas, Margaret, and Mark
on this issue.

Tom

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:37:08 +0200

>> From: Petri Jokela [mailto:[email-masked]] 
[...]
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-narten-iana-experimental-alloca

Which is now RFC 3692, and might have some relevance. 

	Henrik

---

From: Petri Jokela <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:55:16 +0300

> Which is now RFC 3692, and might have some relevance. 

Thanks for these pointers! If I understood correctly RFC3692, we can use
the IP protocol number 253 or 254 for testing purposes (instead of the
current 99) by defining it in the IANA considerations section. There is
no requirement for IANA actions at this point.

It seems that other kinds of solutions are not considered to be a good
idea, e.g. temporary protocol number assignment by IANA.

/petri

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:01:46 +0200

> idea, e.g. temporary protocol number assignment by IANA.

AFAIK there is a difference between a temporary assignment with a  
default date when the assignment reverts vs. temporary assignment  
without such a date.  But I may be wrong.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

--Pekka

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:00:23 +0200

> idea, e.g. temporary protocol number assignment by IANA.

This matches my understanding.

Note that this restricts you to not run this at the same time as you
run another experiment using the same experimental IP protocol number.
But this mostly makes sense anyhow, as it is much more difficult to
draw clear conclusions from 2 simultaneous experiments...

Of course, as soon as there is deployment which is not experimental,
you'll need to get a protocol number so that you don't become a
squatter on the experimental protocol number.

	Henrik

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:25:04 +0300

Thomas,

> If you want, I will volunteer to inquire with Thomas, Margaret, and Mark

Petri agreed to contact Thomas Narten on this one and report back to the 
list with the conclusion.

Cheers,

Gonzalo