I spoke about this a little bit in the meeting and got a few comments.
But as far as I can tell, I never got any responses to my question in
March on the mailing list. Perhaps this is a proper time to ask again...
this is really a minor thing, but I would like to fix a bug in the IANA
registries when I see one. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated.
Jari Arkko wrote:
In the context of reviewing existing IANA registries for various
protocols, we came up with a couple of missing things. The first issue
is that http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters does not point
to RFC 2780 which defines the IANA rules for hop-by-hop and
destination options. This is being fixed by IANA.
The other thing that we noticed was that routing header types do not
appear to have IANA rules. While this is a really small issue, I like
to fix a bug when I see one :-) So, Scott and I wrote a draft that
defines the rules:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header
The new rule requires IETF review before allocation of a new RH type.
We have a couple of questions:
1) Does anyone know of an RFC where this would have been specified?
Its easy to miss one...
2) Are people happy with the rule in the draft?
3) Is the working group interested in adopting this document and
moving it forward?
Jari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------