Subject: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:59:20 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes/

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

-2.1.2, first paragraph: "The specification may, of course, define a new
data type and use it in the same document."
Am I correct to assume that any such definition must (or maybe MUST) be
registered? (Maybe that's already covered in 6929?)

-4.1: I'm curious why new data types need a policy as strong as
"standards action". Is there a concern that people will get this wrong
without the full weight of the IETF consensus process? Is there a concern
that the numbering space will run out? Would it be reasonable to have a
"specification-required" policy, with some guidance to the designated
expert(s)? (Or is it because such data types need to be referenceable
from standards track documents, perhaps related to the guidance against
vendor-specific types?)