On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Thomas Narten wrote: > > I am not clear about how this review will work in practical. So let > > say I am an outsider and I wanted some ICMP types, should I send a > > mail to IANA copying [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and secretriate) or I send a mail > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (copying secretriate). > > IMO, what you should do is write an ID, and take it to the appropriate > WG. If you can't find interest, you probably should drop the idea. > > I'm not a fan of allowing the use of ICMP for non IETF-sponsored > efforts. There are lots of other protocols (e.g., UDP) that can just > as easily be used in the vast majority of cases.
Agree. This seems like a crusade for "better" IANA codepoint allocation.. but IMHO a single document like this isn't the right channel to pursue it. Just put in something defined by the IANA considerations RFC, and argue for (or against) a new kind of allocation scheme independent of this particular specification. I.e., I don't see what's so majorly broken that we have an urgent need to fix it *here*. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
