ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-pim-registry-03.txt

2011-01-13 10:14:18
13.01.2011 18:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.

"any ranges to be *reserved* for .... "Unassigned"..."

doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning is that unassigned and
reserved values MUST (yes, must, that is in RFC 5226; see citation
below) be mentioned.

I do not see a citation "below".
I meant in the previous message.

Please cite where the spec says "must" or "MUST".
That is a citation of RFC 5226

<...>
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace.  In
particular, instructions *MUST* include:
<...>
5) Initial assignments and reservations.  Clear instructions should be
provided to identify any initial assignments or registrations.  In
addition, any ranges that are to be reserved  for "Private Use",
"Reserved", **"Unassigned"**, etc. should be *clearly indicated*.
<...>

...
The strings registries are rather exceptions from the rule I cited
above.

Well, we have many of them. The rules should takes those into account.
That, IMO, was the mistake of authors of RFC 5226 that didn't take the
text registries into considerations. We have no way to correct that now.
...

We can raise errata, and have the authors and the IESG approve them. We can also use common sense, and note that IANA apparently doesn't enforce these rules when they do not make sense.

Best regards, Julian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf