Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:29:31 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As "Catch 22" is one of my favourite books (
http://staringatemptypages.blogspot.com/2007/10/you-must-read-this.html
), it pleases me to know that there'll be an RFC with a reference to it.

-- Section 4 --

   Additionally, IANA is requested to make the existing empty IPv6 Next
   Header Types registry redirect users to a new IPv6 Extension Header
   Types registry.  It will contain only those protocol numbers which
   are also marked as IPv6 Extension Header types in the Assigned
   Internet Protocol Numbers registry.

Two small points here:

1. "It" in the second sentence is ambiguous: it could refer to either of
the registries mentioned in the first sentence.  I suggest making it "The
IPv6 Extension Header Types registry will contain...".

2. Is it your intent that the (empty) IPv6 Next Header Types registry
also be closed to new registrations?  Whether or not, it would be best to
make that clear.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 07:51:00 +1300

Hi Barry,

On 05/10/2013 07:29, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
> IPv6 Extension Header Types registry will contain...".

OK

> also be closed to new registrations?  Whether or not, it would be best to

Good catch. IMHO, it should be formally closed.

I'd be happy to see these as RFC Editor changes.

Thanks
    Brian