Jeff:
Yes, that is the best plan. Sue From: Jeff Haas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 7:10 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Mach Chen; General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [IANA #818133] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard Sue, On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: Sue, is there any reason to not use a similar registration range as the 0x80 range? I.e.: 0x00-0xbf - FCFS 0xc0-0xff - IETF review? Sue: I am fine with use but it was not spelled out in the draft. If this is the range, we will need a 2 Week LC to confirm this range for both types for both types. Revise the draft so IANA can confirm, and I'll start the 2 WG LC in parallel with the other processes. Since neither of our proposals were covered in the draft originally, it makes sense to go for an updated WGLC/IETF LC anyway. Once IANA confirms that the updated text is clear, I'll issue -04 and you can start that. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
