*> *> > The IESG has received a request to consider CR-LDP Extensions for ASON *> > <draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt> as an Informational RFC. *> > This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF *> > Working Group. *> *> I have two comments about this draft. *> *> The first is that the draft calls for assignment of code points for *> some new messages, TLVs and status codes. The draft, however, fails *> to say from which spaces these should come (e.g., that to be allocated *> by IETF Consensus, First Come First Served, Experimental). If this is *> not specified, then I would suggest that code points from Experimental *> spaces be used. *> According to the IANA assignment rules for RSVP values, the only two options are IETF consensus and FCFS. *> If code points are to be allocated from the space to be allocated by *> IETF Consensus, I strongly suggest that a *Standards Track* document be *> written, with more detail on the messages, especially their processing. Indeed, that is what "IETF consensus" means, isn't it? Bob Braden *> Also, more detail on what the goal is here, under what circumstances *> these messages need to be sent/replied to, etc. *> *> Kireeti. *> *>