Sheng JIANG <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the action of asking for IANA early review should only be done > when the document was getting into the late stage of WG document, like > in WGLC or close to WGLC. This document has just been adapted last IETF > and submitted as a WG document first time in this April. It even has > not be presented as a WG document for once. I think it is too early to > take this action. Bottom line, I would like to hear the WG response in > IETF 120.
a) we don't have to be beholden to IETF meetings and schedules. We do things on the list. It would be really really nice if more documents were discussed on the list. b) the content of brski-discovery has been in other documents since 2018. c) the point of brski-discovery is really to collect enough related IANA information into one place so that it can be sanely reviewed. Getting IANA to tell us if we got it right early allows us to continue. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
