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. Be well, G/
