Sure, if the IESG agrees, this is fine.
Brian
Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
At 04:06 PM 08/04/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've read this since I left the microphone. I stick to my guns - the statement "Requests for type value assignments from outside of the IETF should be sent to the IETF for review." is too vague and needs to be more specific, as in
"should be addressed to the IPv6 WG if it exists or to the IESG if there is no such WG in existence" or something like that.
I agree that saying "sending to the IETF" is not workable and the instructions need to be more explicit. Since this topic since this comes up in many drafts, I wonder if the IETF should set up a specific alias that these requests can be sent to so they won't be lost in the mail sent to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am, in parallel, asking if a new alias can be set up for sending this type of reqest to the IESG.
How about the following text? This is a slight rewrite from what was presented in yesterday's w.g. meeting but preserves the same intent.
3. Requests for new type value assignments from outside of the IETF should be sent to the IETF for review at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The general guideline for this review is that the assignment for a single type value should be made if there is public and open documentation of the protocol and if the assignment is not being used to circumvent an existing IETF protocol or work in progress. Requests for the assignment for multiple type values require additional review to insure that multiple type values are essential.
Comments?
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
