Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote:
> As regards "CPAxxx", I am not familiar with that. 😊
...
> We could, however, improve things by using "TBA1", "TBA2" etc. both in
> the body of the draft and in the IANA Considerations section. That
> would help match each TLV definition with the codepoint request in the
> IANA Considerations section.
Yes, it's exactly that, but CPA001, CPA002, CPA003, etc.
The logic is that, when published, nothing should still be "to be determined"
It's not a big deal, just a thought.
I appreciate how precisely you've been with the registries involved, because
sometimes documents are too vague, and we have many similiarly named
registries...
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
] My working hours and your working hours may be different. [
] Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours [
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
