Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

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

 



In this case 'the idea' was "we would like an option code point
assigned".

if that's all there is to the proposal, it should be rejected out-of-hand without discussion.

I'd have thoughth the discussion should have been about whether there was an intention of deployment by the requestor (the request isn't gratuituous) and whether there are enough codepoints available for future use (the request, if fulfilled, wont prevent other IETF-developed ideas from getting their own codepoints). The decision process should have stopped when the answer was
"yes" on both counts. At least, that's how it seems to me.

those are both valid concerns, but relatively minor concerns compared to the potential for poorly designed IP options to have an adverse effect on Internet interoperation, at any layer from 3 up.

Keith

_______________________________________________

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]