----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Eggert" <lars(_dot_)eggert(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com>; "Phillip
Hallam-Baker"
<hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:02 PM
On 2011-1-18, at 15:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing the
phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment".
Exactly.
<tp>
Which, presumably, would be in a BCP updating RFC5226 which only allows for
Private Use:
Experimental:
Reserved: Not to be assigned.
Unassigned: Unused and available for assignment via documented procedures.
Tom Petch
</tp>
Lars
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf