On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM 9/7/12, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > This statement seems fine, but it's worth noting that it would apply only to *IETF* protocol specs. What did you have in mind as "noting"? This text seems pretty clear to me as applying only to "IETF protocol specifications": the IEEE RAC will not assign a new Ethertype to a new IETF protocol specification that needs one until the IESG has approved the protocol specification for publication as an RFC. > The IESG has, IMO, no authority to make such claims for independent submissions (and what about IRTF ones?), and the IEEE should recognize that such protocols are described by RFCs too. Where do you see any such claims in this statement? What would you change? - Ralph > > Joe > > On 9/3/2012 5:02 PM, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are solicited. >> >> On behalf of the IESG, >> Russ >> >> --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- >> >> Subject: Ethertype Assignments for IETF Protocols >> >> The IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC) assigns Ethertypes. >> (See http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/.) Some IETF >> protocol specification make use of Ethertypes. Since Ethertypes are a >> fairly scarce resource, the IEEE RAC will not assign a new Ethertype to >> a new IETF protocol specification that needs one until the IESG has >> approved the protocol specification for publication as an RFC. >> >> To let the IEEE RAC know that the IESG has approved an IETF protocol >> specification for publication, all future requests for assignment of >> Ethertypes for IETF protocol specifications will be made by the IESG. >> >> Note that playpen Ethertypes have been assigned in IEEE 802 [1] for use >> during development and experimentation. >> >> >> [1] IEEE Std 802a-2003 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802-2001). >> IEEE standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: >> Overview and Architecture -- Amendment 1: Ethertypes for >> Prototype and Vendor-Specific Protocol Development. >> >>