> We have to wait until HNCP is mature enough at least.
Please allocate a port now, so we can start patching /etc/services, nmap,
etc.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> On a different topic, I think reserving 32 TLV types to DNCP is far from
> being enough.
Seconded.
> I guess that comment joins Thomas’ comment about version numbers, with
> which I agree (that we should add one).
Thirded.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet ma
Now -09 is available. Changelog (diff is relatively large, but these are the
main parts):
- Reserved 1024+ TLV types for future versions (=versioning
mechanism); private use section moved from 192-255 to 512-767.
- Added applicability statement and clarified some text bas
> Recapitulating, I see basically two potential issues where we do not yet have
> resolution:
>
> oVersioning
> oAddress/Endpoint terminology
>
We have changed the IANA section like this now:
11-31: Free - policy of 'standards action' should be used
32-511: Reserved for per-DNCP pr
On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Ted Lemon
mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Dave Taht
mailto:dave.t...@gmail.com>> wrote:
a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
soon, if they have not already. (?)
The way to do this would be for the cha
On 29/07/2015 15:18, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> As per RFC 7120 (section 3), the request only has to go through the
> chairs and ADs - no IESG review required. Anyway, with all the
> implementation activity, I believe we should move forward with the early
> allocation process. We do
> a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
> soon, if they have not already. (?)
DNCP is not the place for this since it is abstract and for that
matter does not define any ports ever.
We have to wait until HNCP is mature enough at least.
Cheers,
Steven
__
On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
> soon, if they have not already. (?)
The way to do this would be for the chairs to ask Terry for an early
allocation. Assuming he agrees, the IESG discusses it, and IANA issu
On 29.7.2015, at 15.01, Pierre Pfister wrote:
> Hello Markus,
>
> I could not find-out what french-guy-living-in-Paris you are referring to, so
> I wanted to make sure I at least have the 3rd position. ;)
You probably do. It is clearly a conspiracy.
> I think the complexity about the Endpoint
a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
soon, if they have not already. (?)
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Hello Markus,
I could not find-out what french-guy-living-in-Paris you are referring to, so I
wanted to make sure I at least have the 3rd position. ;)
I think the complexity about the Endpoint definition mostly comes from the fact
that a DNCP Endpoint is half-defined by configuration and half-d
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 13:06, Markus Stenberg wrote:
>
> First of all, thanks a lot again for review comments; I think you are the
> most critical reviewer we have had yet, and it helps to improve the document
> quality a lot :)
I *was* starting to worry if I needed to take out armed protectio
First of all, thanks a lot again for review comments; I think you are the most
critical reviewer we have had yet, and it helps to improve the document quality
a lot :) We have had a number of reviews by this point, but I believe you have
raised order of magnitude more changes than the second in
Hello Thomas,
let me just quickly say, thanks again for your detailed reviews. Together with
the others it helped us a great deal in advancing the draft to where it is
today.
We have put your HNCP-review and this follow up for DNCP on our todo,
and will provide you with some detailed changes and
Hello Thomas,
thanks a lot for your elaborate review, we have just pushed revision -06
of DNCP addressing your issues and comments and that of other reviewers.
Please see more detailed comments inline.
Cheers,
Steven & Markus
On 16.06.2015 17:45, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> Comments:
>
>
Thomas,
Thank you for such an exhaustive and thorough review!
We will certainly ask the WG and authors to consider these in a new
revision to be published before IETF LC officially begins (though
technically that's Terry's call at this stage).
- Mark
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Thomas Cla
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance
17 matches
Mail list logo
