Hi Gunter, > > On Sep 18, 2025, at 4:06 PM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Removed the topics that were resolved. Many thanks Mahesh. > Look for GV2> > >> GV> if the technology is not implemented and there is no >> GV> implementation >> planned, then why suggest a a value to IANA? maybe just leave it up to >> them to decide what is best for the tooling? > > There are two questions here. The question of "why publish if no plan to > experiment", and the question of IANA assignment to do the experiment. > > As the shepherd for this document has already stated, the question of > publishing was discussed with some of the Routing ADs. Some of vendors do not > want to implement technology unless they see an RFC, even when it is > experimental. With the work done on the document, it was prudent to publish > the document to allow those (experimental) implementations rather than to > abandon the document at this stage. > > GV2> I was not questioning " why publish if no plan to experiment " at all, > but was wondering why there is a preferred code point allocation. It could in > theory be anything that IANA finds easiest to allocate. Question was why > there is a preference. That's all.
No paricular preference for a particular code point other than the fact it has to be deterministic. We just chose the next available code point in the space reserved for AuthType. Cheers. > > Be well, > G/
