Hi Jari,
thanks for your input. We will discuss this issue in the context of all
the HIP bis specs within the HIP WG.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
On 03/11/2011 1:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Ralph,
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).
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf