Tom,

Now that you are on the IANA considerations, I would appreciate if you can 
consider updating it to request a codepoint from the tunnel registry  available 
at: 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6. 
More rationale can be found in RFC-to-be-8675 (draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel).

Registration guidelines are available at: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-iftype-reg.

Cheers,
Med

De : Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Tom Herbert
Envoyé : jeudi 24 octobre 2019 00:16
À : Greg Mirsky
Cc : int-area; [email protected]
Objet : Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question


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

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to