Hi Michael/Guy, I think Carlos has a point. What has happened with values assigned till now (< 301) is something we cannot change. But going forward, we can do better. The guidance to both IANA/DE should be clear on what is required to get new values. If requestors are presented with two choices, and one of them is easy, i.e., provide a contact, which in my mind is not a stable reference, why would they work on something that is (in my opinion) much harder, i.e., specification required? We should stick to the specifications required, giving users clarity on why the code point is being requested.
On the question of private vs experimental, I would first of all s/Private/Experimental/ in Section 2.2 for values 65001 to 65535. Secondly, while “Private Use” values were assigned in the past, is there a reason to allow them in the future? If not, it should be made clear that users can request Experimental values for Private Use, but that they will be treated as such, i.e., Experimental. BTW, there was no response to some of his other comments. It would be nice to acknowledge them. Thanks. > On Jun 12, 2025, at 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> > wrote: > > > Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I send a request asking for an FCFS value. Get an assignment without >> issues. Done. Had I requested a Spec Required value, the expert might >> have pushed back with potential interop and stability concerns for the >> spec and the pointer. Why would I do that? > > You don't care, so you don't. End of problem. > >> So, I am *not* writing a spec to get an assignment. I wrote a spec to >> have implementations. Since it’s the same work to ask for FCFS than >> Spec Required, would anyone not ask for FCFS? > > If you don't care if your specification is available, if it interoperates > with others, or can be decoded in 20 years by others, then FCFS is fine for > you. > >> If this is the perspective, and as you mentioned, are interested in not >> overthinking, the proposal does not seem to provide guidance on why or >> benefits of Spec Required, nor prevents from attacks to the registry. > > IANA and Designated Experts will notice if there are nuissance requests. > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
