Hi Jari, thanks for your input. We will discuss this issue in the context of all the HIP bis specs within the HIP WG. Cheers, Gonzalo On 03/11/2011 1:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Ralph, > >> This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP Packet Type registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. > > I support this action. > > RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request that RFC 5201bis http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 would use "IETF Review or IESG Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this case that a number allocation should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part in this IANA rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, unless something special was going on (large number of numbers were being allocated, we'd be running out of the numbers, the proposal came from some entity not as trustworthy as the IRTF, etc). > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf