I am for adopting this draft as WG document.
It says that RH types should be allocated through "IETF Review" or "IESG
Approval" - these methods seem to me the most appropriated because
offer the widest possible review through IETF - IESG and WG. This is
needed knowing that RH has large importance in the sequence of headers.
The other methods are "Private Use", "Experimental Use", "Hierararchical
Allocation", "FCFS", "Expert Review", "Spec Req'd", "RFC Req'd",
"Standards Action" (rfc5226). The first four seem not adapted for such
an important header while the latter three seem too much work for such
simple action as properly reserving a number.
Alex
Brian Haberman a écrit :
All, I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting
draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 as a 6MAN WG document. All
comments, for or against, should be sent to the mailing list or the
chairs by September 15th, 2009.
Regards, Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
