Brian, Thanks for the feedback. See inline[CB].
This is incorporated in the latest version. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-10 https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-10 Chris -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:04 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Janos Farkas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: (with COMMENT) Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The IANA Considerations section creates a new registry for the MRT Profiles. It allocates "Values 221-255 are for vendor private use." Are there limitations/guidance on how vendors use this range? Should Section 8,14 or 17 say something about dealing with these ranges in operational networks? [CB]I have modified the IANA considerations section to use the exact terms defined in RFC 5226 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", and also to give IANA clearer guidance on the structure of table. I added a reference to RFC5226 as well. I think RFC5226 gives pretty good guidance about what to expect when using these ranges, that additional text in Section 8,14, or 17 would not add much. ================== 16. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to create a registry entitled "MRT Profile Identifier Registry". The range is 0 to 255. The Default MRT Profile defined in this document has value 0. Values 1-200 are allocated by Standards Action. Values 201-220 are for Experimental Use. Values 221-254 are for Private Use. Value 255 is reserved for future registry extension. (The allocation and use policies are described in [RFC5226].) The initial registry is shown below. Value Description Reference ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------ 0 Default MRT Profile [This draft] 1-200 Unassigned 201-220 Experimental Use 221-254 Private Use 255 Reserved (for future registry extension) The MRT Profile Identifier Registry is a new registry in the IANA Matrix. Following existing conventions, http://www.iana.org/ protocols should display a new header entitled "Maximally Redundant Tree (MRT) Parameters". Under that header, there should be an entry for "MRT Profile Identifier Registry" with a link to the registry itself at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mrt-parameters/mrt- parameters.xhtml#mrt-profile-registry. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
