Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



To whatever small degree it matters, I agree with Brian on this.

There have been many clear statements indicating that the writer believes that the policy in force for the allocation of these code points is wrong. The policy may be right, and it may be wrong. But that is not the point. But the policy as written in the RFC requires that the IESG review the proposal. Such a review clearly implies technical review, not just a check for document completeness. The IESG did what the RFC tells them to do.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:04 PM 6/28/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John, I'm probably replying out of sequence, and I'll say this once
again only:

I don't believe that the IESG is entitled, under the BCP in force,
to authorise the IANA to assign a hop by hop option number to
a usage that we believe clearly needs IETF technical review.
So we don't go to question 2 until we've dealt with question 1.

    Brian


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]