Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action processes.
I read that as suggesting, in order, the groups who could _allocate_ a new codepoint without requiring further review. But _not_ allocating would mean escalating to the next group along (i.e. if the IESG do not feel it appropriate to allocate a codepoint immediately, they'd 'redirect' the requestor to the process for gaining IETF Consensus, etc) This seems logical to me in so far as it optimises the approval path for uncontentious requests (IESG approval is presumably a quicker process than IETF Consensus, etc). What piqued my interest with the original announcement rejecting this particular codepoint was the IESG's editorialising, which came across as "don't bother trying for IETF consensus, it'll be a long time coming and we've got some similar/better work of our own going on". Which just didn't seem like a fair or reasonable rider on a rejection message. (In my confused opinion, naturally.) cheers, gja _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf