On Dec 22, 2004, at 15:07, Pekka Savola wrote:
Inline..
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Soliman, Hesham wrote:> substantial > ----------- > > ==> this spec needs at least an IANA Considerations section, > stating at > least: > 1) the allocation guidelines for ND option types/codes > (Standards Action? > IETF Consensus?) > 2) that no IANA action is required for ICMPv6 types, > beyond updating > the ICMPv6 codepoints to refer to this RFC instead of > RFC2461 in their > registry.
=> ok. I didn't think IANA sections had to be included but I'll add 2) above.
Yes, in all new drafts will have to have an IANA Considerations section, even if empty .. and currently there's no policy on ICMPv6 ND assignments, so this doc needs to spell it out.
We need to keep in mind that Section 7 of RFC 2780 deals with Type/Code assignments for ICMPv6.
Regards, Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
