> On Jun 10, 2025, at 9:01 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> 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.
You can achieve the same with an FCFS allocation — the question still stands. There is a common template for FCFS and Spec Required allocations. Both include an optional Reference(s) field. What is the incentive to request a Spec Required vs. an FCFS? Do you expect someone will ask for the more difficult choice, when they get exactly the same result? > >> 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. Up to you all — but Private Use != Experimental! > >> 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. Linking to the first comment, this would further encourage allocation requests with specifications to ask for FCFS… Thanks for considering, Carlos. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
