Hi Med, Thanks for the information. I seemed to have missed this one!
Would it make sense to check the opinion of the IANA on this? Maybe they faced a similar situation in some other registry and better to do this correctly once for all. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 2:34 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > > > I guess you also noticed that we don’t have such entry for the new created > subregistries (while there is a provision for priv prefix for those as well > in the spec): > > - > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml#alto-entity-domain-type > - > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml#alto-entity-property-type > > > > This is something we discussed and agreed with the authors when addressing > the IESG comments for draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new. > > > > As a reminder, some IESG members were concerned with listing priv: in the > registry. Please refer to the comments from Murray, in particular: > > > > “For Sections 12.2 and 12.3, I suggest not including a registry entry for > "priv:" because that's not an identifier, but everything else is. It's fine > to leave in prose saying nothing can be registered using "priv:" as a prefix, > as those are meant to indicate private use.” > > > > Having a note would sufficient to refer to the reserved prefix. Removing > the entry would be consistent with the newly created registry and aligned > with the intended usage. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > *Envoyé :* mercredi 9 mars 2022 09:26 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > *Cc :* alto <[email protected]> > *Objet :* Re: [alto] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7285 (6876) > > > > Hi, > > > > Does the erratum ask that we remove priv: from the IANA registry as well? > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml#cost-metrics > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml#endpoint-property-types > > > > I think that would be unfortunate. Perhaps some text in the Intended > Semantics can be added to say it is a prefix! > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:20 PM RFC Errata System < > [email protected]> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7285, > "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6876 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Mohamed BOUCADAIR <[email protected]> > > Section: 14.3 > > Original Text > ------------- > +------------+--------------------+ > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > +------------+--------------------+ > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > | priv: | Private use | > +------------+--------------------+ > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > +------------+--------------------+ > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > +------------+--------------------+ > | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | > +------------+--------------------+ > > Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types > > > Notes > ----- > priv: is not an identifier, but a prefix. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7285 (draft-ietf-alto-protocol-27) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) > Protocol > Publication Date : September 2014 > Author(s) : R. Alimi, Ed., R. Penno, Ed., Y. Yang, Ed., S. > Kiesel, S. Previdi, W. Roome, S. Shalunov, R. Woundy > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Application-Layer Traffic Optimization > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
