Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. S2.2, Allocation Policy:
> What is the incentive for anyone to submit a Specification Required
> registration, when there’s FCFS with a much lower bar (just a contact)?
Interoperability.
You would register because you want to be found, you want people use your
link type, and a contact does not create stability.
> 3. I recommend adding an Experimental range
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126#section-4.2
I think that the private use values: 65001->65536 and
147 to 162 are enough.
> 7. Shall there be a separate range for existing ones (<= 301) instead
> of lumping them in FCFS, since some have specification, etc?
FCFS space will have uneven amount of specification, which historically we
have had.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
