Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> writes: > > I also do not add the "reserved" section since the IANA ranges were > > discussed extensively and the current number ranges are the result of a > > consensus I didn't want to have one person change without a lot of > > backup agreement. > > This is the only serious problem I see. The assignment policy/status > will have to be specified for every value. I agree that I should not > be specifying the status of the range that was omitted and for which I > suggested "reserved". Given this gaping hole in the IANA > Considerations, I imagine that the IESG will impose a policy for that > range or, alternatively, the IESG and/or IANA will bounce the draft > back to the WG get this filled in.
We might be mis-communicating... I did add your "unassigned" tag, just not the "reserved" one beyond that. IE, the text now looks like: INFO-CODE: 25-65535 Purpose: Unasigned Reference: Section 5.2 -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
