Subject: IANA considerations in draft-ietf-l2tpext-svctype-00.txt

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:26:11 -0700

"Specification Required" might be a more appropriate allocation policy for
Service Type numbers than FCFS, since an RFC is required in section 10
anyway.  Therefore, I suggest that Section 10 be deleted and Section 8 be
changed to read:

8. IANA Considerations

   The Service Type AVP namespace will be registered and maintained by
   IANA as follows:

    o Values 0 and 65535 are reserved.

    o Value 1 is reserved for PPP payloads.

    o Values between 2 and 65534 are to be assigned by IANA, using
      the "Specification Required" policy [RFC 2434].

8.1. Specification Requirements for New Service Types
   To define a new Service Type for a payload other than PPP, a new RFC
   MUST be drafted which MUST:

    o Identify any new L2TP AVPs or control messases necessary for the
      establishment, maintenance, and teardown of the non-PPP session.

    o Identify which AVPs must be present (new or existing) in each
      existing or new control message with a given service type.

    o Identify any existing AVPs which have a new or revised meaning for
      a given Service Type beyond that defined in RFC2661.

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:08:55 -0600

OK by me...  Thanks Glen,

-danny