Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not >>>> accurate (1): "linktypes "highest" level is Specification >>>> Required". A better reason should be provided. >> >>> The draft doesn’t just register in that registry, it creates a >>> registry. >> >>> Note that I have tried multiple times to find out what the >>> requirements on the document type/stream for creating a registry are, >>> and I haven’t found anything. >> >> I was told by Adrien Farrel, then ISE, that the ISE couldn't create >> registries that potentially required any kind of IETF actions to fill >> them. Now, we've changed the IANA Considerations since then, but >> that's where we were a few years ago.
> OK, but these are IETF WG documents, not on the ISE stream. So I don’t
> think this information is relevant (if it were, we’d need to advance it
> from rumor level to some authoritative reference).
It's why they aren't on the ISE stream.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
