On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 07:49:42AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > Anyway, my main point is that I do not see that the extensibility > > implications of enumerations and identities change just because a module > > is owned by IANA. Allocating a new enum requires an update of the module > > defining the enum, i.e., allocation is centralized. > > [Med] The point is that adding a new enum is possible. The extensibility > concern with enums we used to have for non IANA-maintained modules does not > apply. I agree that identities are more flexible. That’s why the suggested > text requires a justification text to motivate the design choice. > Adding an enum is always possible, regardless who "owns" the module. Yes, it is process wise easier to add an enum to an IANA maintained module than an IETF maintained module. But this has nothing to do with the text in the RFC you believe needs an update. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
