Thanks Dan and Jouni,
Seems reasonable. I did not know about 3588bis.
On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:53 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
The current allocation policy is defined by RFC 3588, section 11.2.1
which indeed makes no distinction between permanent, standard commands
and vendor-specific command codes and requires IETF consensus for all.
This will be fixed by
but until this document is approved we are trying to answer the
coming from other SDOs (3GPP in this case) according to the existing
IANA registration process.
Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call:
draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code
Registration for Third Generation PartnershipProject (3GPP)
Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC
My understanding is that this registry requires "IETF
Consensus" as defined in 2434. However, theses registration
are being defined by 3GPP TS 29.272 which does not have IETF
Consensus. If the DIME community wishes to allow
registrations like this, why not update the IANA registration
process to be "Specification Required"?
On Feb 5, 2009, at 7:17 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document:
- 'Diameter Command Code Registration for Third Generation
Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS) '
<draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt> as an
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2009-03-05.
may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain
the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
IESG discussion can be tracked via
IETF-Announce mailing list
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list