On Jun 10, 2025, at 11:27 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 10, 2025, at 6:01 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. > > Should we designate 0-301 as "historic", meaning "this is what was registered > before we established the registry, so it's inconsistent in the level of > specification - we won't assign any values in that range"?
Or are you saying that "FCFS doesn't mean 'guaranteed *not* to have a specification', it just means 'not guaranteed to have a specification', so assignments with specifications are welcome here"? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
