13.01.2011 18:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011
17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error
to me.
"any ranges to be *reserved* for .... "Unassigned"..."
doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning is that
unassigned and
reserved values MUST (yes, must, that is in RFC 5226; see
citation
below) be mentioned.
I do not see a citation "below".
I meant in the previous message.
Please cite where the spec says "must" or "MUST".
That is a citation of RFC 5226
<...>
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of
an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values)
MUST
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace. In
particular, instructions *MUST*
include:
<...>
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions should
be
provided to identify any initial assignments or registrations. In
addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use",
"Reserved", *"Unassigned"*, etc. should be *clearly
indicated*.
<...>
...
The strings registries are rather
exceptions from the rule I cited
above.
Well, we have many of them. The rules should takes those into
account.
That, IMO, was the mistake of authors of RFC 5226 that didn't
take the
text registries into considerations. We have no way to correct
that now.
...
We can raise errata, and have the authors and the IESG approve
them. We can also use common sense, and note that IANA apparently
doesn't enforce these rules when they do not make sense.
Best regards, Julian
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf