This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP
Packet Type registry,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of
HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to
assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document.
I support this action.
RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request that RFC 5201bis
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 would use "IETF Review or IESG
Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this
case that a number allocation should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part in this
IANA rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, unless something special was going on (large
number of numbers were being allocated, we'd be running out of the numbers, the proposal came from some
entity not as trustworthy as the IRTF, etc).
Ietf mailing list