On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Authors, et al., > I have a rather benign question the new registry requested in Section 8.3. > The draft states that the whole 1-127 range is "RFC required" per RFC 5226. > Firstly, a nit - RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC 8126. My question is > Would you agree to split the 128-255 range and set First Come First Served > sub-range. For example: > > +----------------+------------------+---------------+ > | Control type | Description | Reference | > +----------------+------------------+---------------+ > | 0 | Control payload | This document | > | | needs more | | > | | context for | | > | | interpretation | | > | | | | > | 1..127 | Unassigned | | > | | | | > | 128..250 | First Come | RFC 8126 | > | | First Served | | > | 251..254 | Experimental | This document | > | | | | > | 255 | Reserved | This document | > | | | | > +----------------+------------------+---------------+ > > Also, you may consider updating 0 as Reserved and assigning 1 as Control > payload ... > Much appreciate your consideration.
Greg, My immediate question is would this encourage people to develop quasi proprietary control types? (which they would probably do anyway in using experimental values but wouldn't acknowledged by IANA). Tom > > Regards, > Greg > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
