Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote:
>> Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
