Hello all,
I am writing to provide some review on the draft-ietf-pim-registry,
that is currently in Last Call,
Furstly, this document does not explain the abreviatures once they has
appeared in the title, abstract and main text.
Moreover, the initial contents of the regsitry does not mention
- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:00 AM
At 08:29 11-01-11, t.petch wrote:
The provenance of the editor is unknown to
me - and of course, once an RFC has been through the IETF processes,
then the editorship is an
Hi Mykyta,
I am writing to provide some review on the draft-ietf-pim-registry,
that is currently in Last Call,
Many thanks for reviewing.
Furstly, this document does not explain the abreviatures once they has
appeared in the title, abstract and main text.
Good catch. It looks like a number
On 12.01.2011 14:25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
...
Moreover, the initial contents of the regsitry does not mention that
values that are Unassigned.
Yeah, probably worth adding an entry...
11-14 Unassigned
...
My understanding was that if something isn't registered then it's
unassigned. When
On 12.01.2011 15:22, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Entirely at random I clicked on:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/calipso/calipso.xhtml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters
Looks like IANA tries to fill up all the blanks
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01.txt
On 1/12/2011 5:25 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
I am writing to provide some review on the draft-ietf-pim-registry,
that is currently in Last Call,
Many thanks for reviewing.
Furstly, this document does not explain the abreviatures once they has
appeared in the title, abstract and
Seems relevant.
June 8, 2011
http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011211-world-ipv6-day.html?hpg1=bn
Regards
Marshall
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Tom,
At 00:50 12-01-11, t.petch wrote:
This is a provisional registration of an URI scheme (for which a provisional
registration already exists in IANA) so it is the rules of RFC4395
which apply.
Except that they do not appear to cater for re-registration of a provisional
scheme.
The
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges. In some cases, different unassigned subranges have different
allocation policies. For example, there may be a small unassigned
range of lower values requiring Standards Action with the bulk of the
unassigned values
12.01.2011 22:07, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges. In some cases, different unassigned subranges have different
allocation policies. For example, there may be a small unassigned
range of lower values requiring Standards Action with
I'm forwarding the OPS-DIR Review of draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12
that is currently in LC to this list. Mykyta
-Original Message-
From: ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:07
12.01.2011 14:19, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:07 PM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc:
Hi Elwyn,
At 09:10 12-01-11, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This document is not quite ready for the IESG. The appeals process (if
there is to be one) needs to clarified as it currently points indirectly
to a hole in RFC 5226. As explained below, I have a feeling that it
would be wise to avoid tying the
The latest version of this draft resolved all my concerns. Thanks to everyone
that put in all the time and effort.
Cullen
On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
So let me start with I think there is great information in here and I think
it should be published as a
Donald Eastlake wrote:
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges.
The IANA Language Subtag Registry doesn't:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 |
The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete'
draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
17 matches
Mail list logo
