Adrian, > On Sep 22, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> 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.
It is what it is. I think they should update the draft to request a new code point. If they can’t meet the requirements then they won’t get one, if they do (for example, convince an AD to ask IANA to assign it), then they get one. This is much better than deploying something that misuses an exiting code point. BTW, since I have started doing a little Wireshark development, I think it’s important that new protocols be possible to parse in network debugging tools like Wireshark. Misusing a code point doesn’t allow for that. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
