Hi Mirja, Thanks for your comment. See below.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: No Objection > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > One question: Why are there no IANA registries for tables 3.1 and 4.1? I believe that the first time a code point is specified, it is a judgement call whether or not to create an IANA registry. If not, then obviously the first subsequent document that defines additional values needs to set up a registry. But if it doesn't appear that there are likely to be any additional values for some time, I don't think it is necessary to specify a registry and decide on an allocation policy right away. By the time the first additional value needs to be assigned the level of demand and the registration policy may be clearer. However, if the IESG would like, it would certainly be simple enough to have these be IANA registries. (If that were done now I would suggest an allocation policy of IETF Review due to the limited number of values available.) Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
