Robert Elz wrote:
That one may be appropriate here. That is, I certainly believe that
2434 means "verify the documentation is adequate" just as John's draft
is apparently proposing. That is, for me, not a change at all.
I certainly would never have ignored a proposal to register trivial
things like IPv6 option codes if it required approval of the use of
the option, rather than documentation of the thing. That is, when
2780 was proposed, I assumed it was using 2434 in the way I interpret
2434, and IESG approval meant a check that the documentation was of
adequate quality for the purpose, and no more than that.
If RFC 2870 had been meant to allow assignment of hop-by-hop options using
"Specification Required", it would have said so. In that case we would not
be having this discussion (subject to public and archival availability of
the relevant documentation).
There is no possibility that the authors of RFC 2870 were not aware of a
difference between "Specification Required" and "IESG Approval", since that
RFC does allow "Specification Required" (in addition to most of the other
possibilities) for allocation of port numbers -- where the allocation
requirements are obviously intended to be weaker.
--
David Hopwood
<david(_dot_)nospam(_dot_)hopwood(_at_)blueyonder(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf