Bob, inline
> On Sep 6, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> > wrote: > > Bob H., > > thanks for the review! > > I am using: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml > > For my source information. > > I abbreviated "Internet Protocol Number" as "IP Number". Is there a more > accepted abbreviation? > > Or do I always use the full term? This applies to the draft name and title > abbreviation. I think using the full name would be better. Or “IP Protocol Number” or “Protocol Number” if it needs to be abbreviated. > > This is an interesting question as this is the Number in the IP Header for > the enveloped protocol... Right, it is the number used to identify the protocol of the next header (to use the IPv6 terminology) that follows the IP header. > > As for # 144, I follow guidelines I have received elsewhere for write with a > TBD and recommended value; I have had IANA review of those drafts and they > work with this usage. I see now that 144 was recently assigned, so my next > draft will recommend 145. I figured as much. Or just leave it as TBD, unless you care about what number is assigned. > > I look forward to your response, then I will push out a new ver. Hope this is helpful. > > Bob M. (are there as many 'Bobs' as "Steves" here ;) ) :-) Bob > > > > On 9/6/22 11:30, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Bob, >> >> Once there is an adoption call, I will support it. >> >> I did a quick read of the draft and have a few suggestions, mostly editorial. >> >> Please be careful with the terminology. The registry where you are asking >> for an assignment is called “Internet Protocol Numbers”. I was confused by >> the use of "IP Number”, that isn’t a thing. I suggest making the draft >> consistent on the name of the field, specifically always use “protocol” in >> the name. >> >> The draft requests the assignment of 144 from the IANA registry. I looked >> at the registry, this value is currently assigned to: >> >> 144 AGGFRAG AGGFRAG encapsulation payload for ESP (TEMPORARY - >> registered 2022-08-26, >> document sent to IESG Evaluation 2022-07-14) >> [draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-18] >> >> Suggest leaving this as just TBD. >> >> Bob >> >> >> >>> On Sep 6, 2022, at 6:32 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> As was discussed at the INTAREA meeting at IETF 114, >>> >>> I request that a call for WG adoption of this draft. >>> >>> There is a lot of work which will cascade in other areas once this is one >>> its way. >>> >>> I am open to draft name change. I really SHOULD have called it something >>> like: >>> >>> draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ipnumber >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Int-area mailing list >>> Int-area@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
