OK, I'll add registries. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected]
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Mirja: > > The assignments imply a standards action for additional assignments. The WG > review did not request further details, but if the IESG feels this is > appropriate (and it may well be), it could be changes to IANA registries > without changing the sense of the WG LC. > > As WG co-chair, I do not think we need to go back to the WG to discuss this > and Donald can set-up the registries in the document. > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:11 PM > To: Donald Eastlake > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The > IESG; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on > draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Donald, > > I guess it’s up to the wg to decide if a registry is needed or not. I was > just wondering why it was decided to not have one and wanted to double-check > that this is the right thing to do. I’m fine with that. > > I would however, recommend to add a sentence saying that a document that > would want to use any additional value would also need to set up a registry. > And further, while table 4.1 says "Available for assignment by IETF Review“, > table 3.1 doesn’t; i would recommend to add this there as well. > > Mirja > > > >> Am 04.07.2016 um 20:14 schrieb Donald Eastlake <[email protected]>: >> >> 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
