As we were directed by both INT ADs at this point, and had no object by the other ADs during the telechat call, I've treated this as a "take our money" moment and have requested early allocation of an IP protocol code point to move things forward.
If in the (distant?) future INT needs to take back the code point b/c they've run out we woulbe be able to accommodate them. Thanks, Chris. > On Aug 25, 2022, at 12:35, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > Indeed, they was the conclusion of the transport area at the time. I would > also prefer we could stick with that better solution, but more importantly I > don’t want this document stopped by a DISCUSS on either side of this argument. > > Paul > > Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > >> On Aug 25, 2022, at 12:28, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think this document needs to request a protocol number from IANA. >> >> Erik, the WG had this debate at length two+ years ago. >> >> I feel that the WG, through our AD, asked the IESG and the IntArea and >> Transport Area this specific question in a number of different ways to be >> sure. >> >> We decided not to go that way because we felt that it was a waste of a very >> scarce resource. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) >> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> IPsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > <signature.asc>_______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
