I fully agree with your proposed resolution.
Thanks,
Yoshihiro Ohba
Jari Arkko wrote:
The IESG discussed this draft yesterday. There's one issue from Pasi
which I think Yoshi has already responded to. Please submit a new draft
version to address that.
However, we have a more serious procedural problem. It seems that RFC
5191 says that bit allocation from the PANA header is only possible via
Standards Action. This draft requires a bit, and I think the right
classification for this draft is Experimental. The IESG would have no
problem in allocating the bit for this draft, but it is currently
against the approved RFCs from the PANA WG.
I think the right solution to this problem is to write a short draft
that updates RFC 5191 IANA considerations to say "... Standards Action
or IESG Approval". And yes, I'm kicking myself everytime I realize that
there's an RFC somewhere that didn't include the IESG Approval option.
We often need it to approve something.
Is the WG OK with this path forward?
Jari
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
Pana@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
Pana@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
