ARP certainly precedes any notion of defining rules for how to add code points. However, as a contributor to an RFC that extended ARP (Inverse ARP, RFC 1293), at that time we wrote a draft in the IPLPDN working group that defined the new code points, and it went through the usual standards track process.
Cheers, Andy On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-10-21 11:41, Jari Arkko wrote: >> Dave, >> >>> As far as I know, it is not an IANA-maintained registry. >>> The numbering space can only be extended by RFC. >>> >> >> IANA is keeping track of the parameters, see: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml >> >> and we get occasional requests for new allocations. However, the IANA >> page lists the registration procedures as "not defined?". > > Having actually *read* the ARP RFC a while back when I was preparing > lectures, I find the notion of people asking for new op-codes > rather scary. Could we consider "registry closed"? > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
