> > I'm not a fan of allowing the use of ICMP for non IETF-sponsored
> > efforts. There are lots of other protocols (e.g., UDP) that can just
> > as easily be used in the vast majority of cases.
> Are you saying that we should remove point 3 from section 6.1
> completely ??
That would be my prefe
Thomas,
Comments inline..
> >1. The IANA should allocate and permanently register new ICMPv6 type
> > codes from IETF RFC publication. This is for all RFC types
> > including standards track, informational, experimental status,
> > etc.
>
> With the IESG approval of draft-
Thomas,
> IMO, what you should do is write an ID, and take it to the appropriate
> WG. If you can't find interest, you probably should drop the idea.
If the WG accepts my idea or IESG approves it as an individual
draft, it becomes an internal (for IETF) request and then point
3 of section 6.1 doe
On 2004-08-05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I've read this since I left the microphone. I stick to my guns -
> the statement "Requests for type value assignments from outside of the
> IETF should be sent to the IETF for review." is too vague and needs to
> be more specific, as in
>
> "should be ad
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > I am not clear about how this review will work in practical. So let
> > say I am an outsider and I wanted some ICMP types, should I send a
> > mail to IANA copying [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and secretriate) or I send a mail
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (copying
> I am not clear about how this review will work in practical. So let
> say I am an outsider and I wanted some ICMP types, should I send a
> mail to IANA copying [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and secretriate) or I send a mail
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (copying secretriate).
IMO, what you should do is write a
>From another thread:
From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:42:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints' to BCP
FWIW,
Bob,
> 3. Requests for new type value assignments from outside of the
>IETF should be sent to the IETF for review at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>The general guideline for this review is that the assignment for
>a single type value should be made if there is public and open
>
Pakka,
One could ask them to be Cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Their
business is ticketing the messages and making sure things don't fall
under the cracks?
I agree. I send comments on this topic to the authors of RFC2434
"Guidelines for writing an iana considerations" suggesting something
similar.
At 11:20 AM 08/05/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sure, if the IESG agrees, this is fine.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I agree that saying "sending to the IETF" is not workable and the
> instructions need to be more explicit. Since this topic since this comes
> up in many drafts, I wonder if the IETF should set up a specific alias that
> these requests can be sent to so t
Sure, if the IESG agrees, this is fine.
Brian
Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
At 04:06 PM 08/04/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've read this since I left the microphone. I stick to my guns -
the statement "Requests for type value assignments from outside of the
IETF should be sent to the IETF for revi
Brian,
At 04:06 PM 08/04/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've read this since I left the microphone. I stick to my guns -
the statement "Requests for type value assignments from outside of the
IETF should be sent to the IETF for review." is too vague and needs to
be more specific, as in
"should be a
13 matches
Mail list logo
