thanks, for the clarification(s). -chris (the point of the note was actually to get this, and a reminder to chair-folk... so, crowd-sourcing works!)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29/07/10 11:39 PM, "John Scudder" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> By the way Terry asked what kind of type code to ask for. The MRT draft sez: >> >> 6.1. Type Codes >> >> Type Codes have a range from 0 to 65535, of which 1-64 have been >> allocated. New Type Codes MUST be allocated starting at 65. Type >> Codes 65 - 511 are to be assigned by IETF Review. Type Codes 512 - >> 2047 are assigned based on Specification Required. Type Codes 2048 - >> 64511 are available on a First Come First Served policy. Type Codes >> 64512 - 65534 are available for Experimental Use. The Type Code >> Values of 0 and 65535 are reserved. >> >> I can't quite imagine why you'd bother with the hoop-jumping required by IETF >> Review. If I were you, I'd probably just use an FCFS code point. Numbers is >> numbers after all, they all work the same. > > > That is what I was heading for :-) > > But wanted to give the WG an option of doing ietf review if so desired. > > Moving from my current code of using 65 to a FCFS is trivial. > > Happy to go there as soon as the IANA registry is open. > > Cheers > Terry > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
