Subject: RE: Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:32:29 -0500

Thomas,

Comments inline..

> >    1. The IANA should allocate and permanently register new ICMPv6 type
> >       codes from IETF RFC publication.  This is for all RFC types
> >       including standards track, informational, experimental status,
> >       etc.
> 
> With the IESG approval of draft-iesg-rfced-documents-03.txt, I think
> the above needs more clarification. Is it the intention that a
> document that is submitted to the RFC Editor as an individual
> submission should be granted ICMP code points? I hope not, as that
> potentially opens up the door for permanent IANA code point allocation
> for essentially unreviewed (or broken) purposes.

Even after the approval of draft-iesg-rfced-documents-03.txt,
the IESG is still going to review the individual submissions 
and if they see that the draft is trying to register ICMP types 
for broken purposes, they could return response number 5 (The 
IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review, and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.). Right ?

Ofcourse we don't want IANA to permanently register the ICMP
types for unreviewed or broken purposes.  Should we change the
text so that it allows the publications coming from the WGs
and requires IESG approval for individual submissions ?

> >    3. Requests for type value assignments from outside of the IETF
> >       should be sent to the IETF for review.  The general guideline
> >       for this review is that the assignment should be made if there
> >       is public and open documentation of the protocol and if the
> >       assignment is not being used to circumvent an existing IETF
> >       protocol or work in progress.
> 
> Please read RFC 2434, where it talks about the motivation for having a
> "designated expert". The above is too vague about who makes the has
> final authority for making a decision. And what does it mean "to
> circumvent an existing IETF protocol or work in progress"? E.g., if a
> WG rejects something as "not a good idea", or no WG thinks that a
> proposal "is a good idea", what happens?

We already had some discussions about this paragraph being too vague
and here is the proposed alternative text (a slight modification to
what Bob proposed).

    3. Requests for new type value assignments from outside of the
       IETF should be sent to the IETF for review at <[email-masked]>
       and should be CCed to <[email-masked]>.  The general 
       guideline for this review is that the assignment for a single 
       type value should be made if there is public and open
       documentation of the protocol and if the assignment is not in
       conflict with an existing IETF protocol or work in progress.
       Requests for the assignment for multiple type values require
       additional review to insure that multiple type values are 
       essential.

Comments ?

Regards
Mukesh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------