Hi Jari, thanks for your input. We will discuss this issue in the context of all the HIP bis specs within the HIP WG.
Cheers, Gonzalo On 03/11/2011 1:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Ralph, > >> This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP >> Packet Type registry, >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment >> of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call >> is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. > > I support this action. > > RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request that RFC > 5201bis http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 > would use "IETF Review or IESG Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF > Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this case that a number allocation > should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part in this IANA > rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, unless something > special was going on (large number of numbers were being allocated, we'd be > running out of the numbers, the proposal came from some entity not as > trustworthy as the IRTF, etc). > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
