On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Title : Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the Internet
> Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
> Author(s) : A. Conta, S. Deering
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt
> Pages : 26
> Date : 2004-6-3
I must object to the current IANA considerations section 6.1 on
type/code assignment.
Subcases 1) and 3) are too loose. Just make it 'IETF Consensus',
'IESG Approval', or 'IESG Approval with Specification Required'.
We really don't need a land-rush for ICMP types/codes. On the other
hand, there is a valid need for pre-assignment. This would be worth
having in-line with draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-01.txt.
Also note that you're burdening IANA with the responsibility of
monitoring the assignment of type values and reporting back when they
exceed a threshold. One could argue that IANA is too burdened as it
is. All in all, I think the text for IANA considerations is not
sufficiently baked, and we could spend 6 months arguing about it, so
I'd suggest just using the procedure described in
draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-01.txt for early allocation, and
relatively strict process for permanent allocation, and be done with
it.
A nit:
1. The IANA should allocate and permanently register new ICMPv6 type
codes from IETF RFC publication. This is for all RFC types
including standards track, informational, experimental status,
etc.
==> did you really mean that only _IETF_ RFCs an allocate types? (Not
that I would object to that..) Note that RFCs which went through the
direct submission to the RFC-editor are not IETF RFCs.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
