On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM 9/7/12, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > This statement seems fine, but it's worth noting that it would apply only to > *IETF* protocol specs.
What did you have in mind as "noting"? This text seems pretty clear to me as applying only to "IETF protocol specifications": the IEEE RAC will not assign a new Ethertype to a new IETF protocol specification that needs one until the IESG has approved the protocol specification for publication as an RFC. > The IESG has, IMO, no authority to make such claims for independent > submissions (and what about IRTF ones?), and the IEEE should recognize that > such protocols are described by RFCs too. Where do you see any such claims in this statement? What would you change? - Ralph > > Joe > > On 9/3/2012 5:02 PM, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community >> are solicited. >> >> On behalf of the IESG, >> Russ >> >> --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- >> >> Subject: Ethertype Assignments for IETF Protocols >> >> The IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC) assigns Ethertypes. >> (See http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/.) Some IETF >> protocol specification make use of Ethertypes. Since Ethertypes are a >> fairly scarce resource, the IEEE RAC will not assign a new Ethertype to >> a new IETF protocol specification that needs one until the IESG has >> approved the protocol specification for publication as an RFC. >> >> To let the IEEE RAC know that the IESG has approved an IETF protocol >> specification for publication, all future requests for assignment of >> Ethertypes for IETF protocol specifications will be made by the IESG. >> >> Note that playpen Ethertypes have been assigned in IEEE 802 [1] for use >> during development and experimentation. >> >> >> [1] IEEE Std 802a-2003 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802-2001). >> IEEE standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: >> Overview and Architecture -- Amendment 1: Ethertypes for >> Prototype and Vendor-Specific Protocol Development. >> >>
