Hi Paul, First, allocating those code points would require an RFC. Thus, it has the same overhead as changing the registration procedure.
Second, the result would be a range of uncoordinated code points, which is not what we’re after. We do want to register and have unique code points for experiments. Third, we would very much like to have all of the IS-IS registries using the Expert Review procedure. This is the only one that isn’t. Expert Review gives us much more flexibility. T > On Aug 7, 2024, at 12:30 PM, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > "In practice, this registration procedure is unnecessarily restrictive, as > it prevents > allocation of bits to experimental protocols, which in turn increases the > risk of conflicts introduced by use of unregistered code points (so-called > "code point squatting") > > Why not create a few "Private use and/or Experimental" values and leave the > registration policy Standards Track? > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
