I have verified that all of our comments are in the -13 vesion. I have edited/removed text about Designated Experts, but I think that maybe we should change FCFS -> Expert Review.
Luis Contreras via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > /* Comments */ > - Section 2.2. It is stated that "LinkType values 147 to 162 named > LINKTYPE_RESERVED_xx were originally reserved for Private Use. Their use is > Deprecated in favour of the values in the 65001-65535 range." It is not clear > to me if this implies that LinkType values 147 to 162 are then available for > new allocations or if it is recommended not being used because of their > previous usage as reserved values. In any case, a clarification statement for > this is advisable. Note that if those values are intended to be > allocatable, Clarified. > compatibility. - No reference is provided for LINKTYPE_ETHERNET even though the > description refers to IEEE 802.3 Ethernet. Should not be added a reference to > the appropriate specification by IEEE? okay, fixed, reference to: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436 > - For a number of assigned values (e.g., > 5, 7, 99, ...) the description says "Reserved for ...". This gives the > impression of a non definitive allocation, but something to happen in the > future. Since they are allocations for legacy link types, should we either > reconsider the description (i.e., remove "reserved for") or propose some > statement in that respect in terms of assessing if such reservation is > effective or not? It seems that it's the "Reserved for.." which is the problem. I have removed those two words. > something can be mentioned in this respect, as well. This apllies also to the > case of Number 208. Marked as proprietary. > about why these numbers should not be used. Same for values 52 to 98. - > No Used by NetBSD. > reference is provided for LINKTYPE_RAW even though the description refers to > IPv4 and IPv6. > Should not be added a reference to the appropriate specification > by IETF? Seems to have RFC791 and 8200 referenced now, and 228/229 fixed already. > in line with current values, contains information about Name, Number, > Description and Reference. I wonder if for new allocations could be interesting > to register the date of allocation for the purpose of tracing the the aging of > the allocation in the future. I don't know. I think that IANA has that info internally already. > - Section 2.2.2. It is mentioned the following: > "LinkTypes may be allocated for specifications not publicly available may be > made within the FCFS range. This includes specifications that might be > classified. The minimal requirement is to provide a contact person for that > link type." My quesiton is, should all the (new) registries contain the contact > person? I think it is advisable to describe in some section the structure of > the information required for the new allocations, so to avoid > confussion. The hope is that the reference contains the contact info. IANA otherwise knows who asked. > /* Editorial */ > - s/Their use is Deprecated in favour of.../Their use is deprecated in favour of > - Is there any reason for the indentation of the last paragraph in Section 2.2? > - Section 2.2.2. The following sentence does not read well to me (please, note > I'm not English native speaker): "LinkTypes may be allocated for specifications > not publicly available may be made within the FCFS range." Reworded to say: It is acceptable to register LinkTypes for which specifications are not publicly available. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- 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]
