Hi Joe, I'll be happy with a single Experimental code point. Regards, Greg
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > It would also be useful to understand why you think more than one code > point is needed for experiments (vs the RFC6994-style approach). > > Joe > > On Oct 23, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greg, > > On 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: > > > Please explain why you are proposing this change. > > Thanks, > Bob > > > +----------------+------------------+---------------+ > | 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. > > Regards, > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
