Assuming your interpretation is correct (which seems to match what I
have seen), that would also seem to indicate that allowing them to
hijack an existing code point for their use is also not appropriate.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/22/2019 11:20 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Bob,
I think it would be fine for this draft to request a new one that accurately
described its usage.
For what it's worth, the assignment policy for the registry is IESG Approval or
Standards Action.
The draft concerned (draft-zhu-intarea-gma) doesn't seem to have gained much traction in
the IETF - at least not enough to be likely to qualify for "Standards Action".
Unless the IESG seems likely to grant an assignment, that avenue appears to be closed off.
Adrian
_______________________________________________
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
