Hi, My apologies for the delays, but I have now read this document in full and it is well written. I’ve reviewed the Proposed registries and values and they reflect similar if not same values and allocations to what was in RFC7170 And both document and allocations are properly reflected.
I think it is good to go! Best, Nancy From: Margaret Cullen <mrculle...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 15, 2024 at 12:14 PM To: drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> Cc: Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamw...@cisco.com>, emu@ietf.org <emu@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [IANA #1359904] expert review for draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis (teap-parameters) I have read this document multiple times, and when it is published as an RFC it will clearly meet the requirements for “Specification Required”. I have looked over the proposed registries and values, and they properly reflect the allocations in this document. So, I approve this allocation. However, because of the fundamental nature, large number and complexity of these initial allocations, I think we should also wait for Nancy’s review before continuing. Best Regards, Margaret > On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:19 PM, David Dong via RT > <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> wrote: > > Dear Margaret Cullen and Nancy Cam-Winget (cc: emu WG), > > As the designated experts for the TEAP Error TLV (value 5) Error Codes > registry, can you review the proposed registration in > draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15 for us? Please see > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis/ > > The due date is March 19. > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll > make the registration at: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/teap-parameters/ > > Please let us know if you would like for us to wait for both reviewers to > respond, or if one response is enough. > > With thanks, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
