Why not just post this as errata to RFC4048? Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:18 AM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: IPv6 Subject: Re: NSAP Address IPv6 option Brian, At 07:04 AM 07/11/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >RFC 1888 defined a destination option called "NSAP Address" >with option type code 11-0-00011 = 195 decimal, C3 hexadecimal. > >Unfortunately, the IANA Considerations in RFC 4048 >faild to discuss this option. It is still listed at >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters > >My opinion is that it can be released; I'm aware of no usage. > >Any objections? Can the WG Chairs suggest a procedure to avoid >the overhead of another trivial RFC? The chairs could send an email to the IANA (with cc's to the IPv6 list and IESG) with something to the effect that since RFC4048 made RFC1888 historic, the destination option defined by RFC1888 is no longer needed and should be marked as Reserved. This was the intention of RFC4048, but was omitted in error. The only downside of this approach I can think of is that there wouldn't be an RFC documenting the change. I am not sure this is a big deal in this case. Other opinions and/or suggestions? Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
