[email protected] wrote: > For the specification required range, you may consider adding some > guidance for DEs.
Yeah.
Do we need DE for FCFS?
> The initial table does not mirror the current values in
> https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html. Also, some descriptions in the
> table does not match exactly what is in that table. Not sure if it is
> worth explaining the diff.
We did do some editorial stuff when we produced the document, but also the
page does get updated monthly...
> You may indicate that the procedure for assigning new codes as detailed
> in https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html won't be followed anymore.
Yes, I guess we should suspend allocation of new codes from some point until
IANA is ready. I suggest that I'll suspend allocation at WGLC?
Or would the WG like us to stop *NOW*?
> Some assigned types seem to be used for private use while these types
> fall now under a specification required range. I don't know if it is
> worth to have some consistency here and consider a range for future
> specification required type, e.g., 300-32767 that won't be mixed with
> the historic ones.
We allocated a few chunks for private use years ago, and they could be in use
internally somewhere, so we don't want to change that. But, maybe we should
mark them as deprecated?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
