From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: 26 August 2026 19:28
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... <tp> I am not familiar with CPA00n - Completely Pointless Acronym (when we already have a perfectly adequate one with TBA)? Anyhow, I do agree with making them e.g. TBAn TBAm TBAx and the like, for some values of n, m and x, so that we do not tax the minds of IANA too much. Of course IANA can cope, but the less they have to think the faster and less error prone the result is likely to be (IMHO). Tom Petch -- ] 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] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
