Hi Tony, >As it stands right now, there is no registry for IPv4, so the >real reference is 2113, which only defines 0. Yes, 3175 talk >about defining other values but if you read the IANA >considerations section it is not at all clear that they meant >to extend this to IPv4, tho they certainly should have. > >In any case, I agree that this is ample precedent for >allocating code points for RAO, and undercuts my arguments completely. > >Given that I no longer have a leg to stand on, I'll sit down >and shut up. ;-) > >One request tho: while you're allocating a new code point, >could you please clean up the IANA situation? Please request >that there be a single code point registry for both IPv6 and >IPv4 RAO that includes all of the currently defined code points.
Well, I think we in NSIS really want to do the 'right thing' so to speak, and we came to the conclusion that you have. The authors of the draft are seeking some consensus on how to move forward with this, as this area is definitely murky. John _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
