On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 8:07 AM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> I'll be happy with a single Experimental code point.
>

Okay. We can have one exp code point and define RFC6994 mechanism.

Tom


> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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]> 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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to