It would also be useful to understand why you think more than one code point is needed for experiments (vs the RFC6994-style approach).
Joe > On Oct 23, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greg, > >> On Oct 23, 2019, at 6:44 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Dear Authors, et al., >> I have a rather benign question the new registry requested in Section 8.3. >> The draft states that the whole 1-127 range is "RFC required" per RFC 5226. >> Firstly, a nit - RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC 8126. My question is >> Would you agree to split the 128-255 range and set First Come First Served >> sub-range. For example: > > Please explain why you are proposing this change. > > Thanks, > Bob > > >> +----------------+------------------+---------------+ >> | Control type | Description | Reference | >> +----------------+------------------+---------------+ >> | 0 | Control payload | This document | >> | | needs more | | >> | | context for | | >> | | interpretation | | >> | | | | >> | 1..127 | Unassigned | | >> | | | | >> | 128..250 | First Come | RFC 8126 | >> | | First Served | | >> | 251..254 | Experimental | This document | >> | | | | >> | 255 | Reserved | This document | >> | | | | >> +----------------+------------------+---------------+ >> >> Also, you may consider updating 0 as Reserved and assigning 1 as Control >> payload ... >> Much appreciate your consideration. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
