Version -10 has been uploaded with the registries added (and GENART review comments resolved).
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 4:46 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
