Hi Chris,
This looks good. Thanks for considering my comment!
Regards,
BrianOn 2/5/16 8:25 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > 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. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
