Just in case it helps someone else: Martin clarified to me that early allocation before RFC is possible for Standards Action, according to RFC7120.
Thank you Martin. Jorge On 5/5/16, 10:59 AM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Eric, > >For my own understanding and apologies if this is a dumb question, but I read >this in RFC5226: > >"Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track RFCs approved >by the IESG.” > > >What do you mean by "at least Standards Action comes with early allocation”? >This still requires an RFC or... do you mean there will be a way to register >bits earlier than the RFC milestone? > >Thank you. >Jorge > > > >On 5/4/16, 10:48 PM, "BESS on behalf of EXT Eric C Rosen" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >>On 5/3/2016 6:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> I am curious why the >>> "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a >>> standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag >>> registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the >>> Additional flag will also run out of space? >> >>Yes, I think that is an issue. 48 flags may sound like a lot, but the >>existing 8 flags got used up fairly quickly and suddenly; one draft >>grabbed four flag bits. So FCFS doesn't really seem like an appropriate >>policy here. The other possible policies are all subject to politics, >>but at least Standards Action comes with early allocation. >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>BESS mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
