At 14:41 05-12-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm)
to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols'
<draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-12-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
The intended status is odd if the following requirement has to be tested:
"IANA MUST NOT add an entry to this registry with an Error Code
for the same Error Type"
From the PROTO write-up:
"The IANA Considerations section exists and states that no
IANA actions"
And from Section 3 of the draft:
"This memo creates the following RDDP registries for IANA to manage:
o RDMAP Errors (Section 3.1)
o DDP Errors (Section 3.2)
o MPA Errors (Section 3.3)
o RDMAP Message Operation Codes (Section 3.4)
o SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control (Section 3.5)"
From Section 3.1:
"An IESG-approved standards-track specification"
Are there standard-track specifications which do not require IESG approval?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf