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