Brian, Sounds good to me.
Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:15 AM > To: Manfredi, Albert E > Cc: IPv6 > Subject: Re: NSAP Address IPv6 option (request to WG chairs) > > Bert, > > Over in another part of the universe, there's been quite a > discussion about the prudence required in the management > of limited namespaces, including IP options. As a result, I > don't want to leave what is basically garbage in the IANA > registry. So here is where I am at now, after the > discussion here: > > 1. I will, right now, send an erratum note to the RFC Editor > to correct the omission in RFC 4048. > > 2. I request the WG Chairs to make a consensus call on this > proposal: > > The WG agrees to request the IANA to mark IPv6 > option type code 11-0-00011 = 195 decimal, C3 hexadecimal > as available for assignment. > > Rationale: it's clear that this part of RFC 1888 was never > implemented by anybody, and we should not tie up a > namespace resource as a result. > > Brian > > Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > > Brian, if I have this right, you're talking about two possibilities > > here: > > > > 1. Release the NSAPA destination option code, and have IANA > mark it as > > "reserved," or > > > > 2. Do nothing, which retains the NSAPA designation for that > option code > > 0xC3. > > > > Is there any practical value to changing the designation > from NSAPA to > > "reserved"? If one takes work and the other does not, I'm > not sure why > > bother. > > > > In the future, can a request be made to the IANA to > reassign that 0xC3 > > option code to some new use, citing RFC 4048 as a reason why this is > > okay to do? > > > > Bert > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:56 AM > >>To: Templin, Fred L > >>Cc: IPv6; Bob Hinden > >>Subject: Re: NSAP Address IPv6 option > >> > >>I haven't seen any more discussion on this. > >> > >>It makes perfect sense to post errata, and as document > >>editor I can do that, but we also need to send a request to > >>IANA, as Bob suggested, and that presumably needs WG > >>consensus to be declared, which is outside my scope. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >>Templin, Fred L wrote: > >> > >>>Why not just post this as errata to RFC4048? > >>> > >>>Fred > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:18 AM > >>>To: Brian E Carpenter > >>>Cc: IPv6 > >>>Subject: Re: NSAP Address IPv6 option > >>> > >>>Brian, > >>> > >>>At 07:04 AM 07/11/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>RFC 1888 defined a destination option called "NSAP Address" > >>>>with option type code 11-0-00011 = 195 decimal, C3 hexadecimal. > >>>> > >>>>Unfortunately, the IANA Considerations in RFC 4048 > >>>>faild to discuss this option. It is still listed at > >>>>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters > >>>> > >>>>My opinion is that it can be released; I'm aware of no usage. > >>>> > >>>>Any objections? Can the WG Chairs suggest a procedure to avoid > >>>>the overhead of another trivial RFC? > >>> > >>> > >>>The chairs could send an email to the IANA (with cc's to > >> > >>the IPv6 list > >> > >>>and > >>>IESG) with something to the effect that since RFC4048 made RFC1888 > >>>historic, the destination option defined by RFC1888 is no > >> > >>longer needed > >> > >>>and > >>>should be marked as Reserved. This was the intention of > >> > >>RFC4048, but > >> > >>>was > >>>omitted in error. > >>> > >>>The only downside of this approach I can think of is that > >> > >>there wouldn't > >> > >>>be > >>>an RFC documenting the change. I am not sure this is a > big deal in > >>>this case. > >>> > >>>Other opinions and/or suggestions? > >>> > >>>Bob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>----------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > >>>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>>[email protected] > >>>Administrative Requests: > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>>----------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > >>> > >> > >> > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>[email protected] > >>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
