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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:32:28 -0500

Bob,

>     3. Requests for new type value assignments from outside of the
>        IETF should be sent to the IETF for review at <[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 being
>        used to circumvent 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.

Why did we decide to change the "require IESG approval" text for the 
requests for the assignment for multiple type values to "require
additional review" ?

I am not clear about how this review will work in practical.  So let
say I am an outsider and I wanted some ICMP types, should I send a 
mail to IANA copying [email-masked] (and secretriate) or I send a mail 
to [email-masked] (copying secretriate).  In case of the former, is
IANA going to wait for the IESG to say that it is ok before they
assign these values (this almost is requiring approval) ?  or the 
IANA should just wait for 2 weeks (or whatever time) and if they 
don't hear any objections, they assign the values ?  In case of the 
latter, is IESG going to fwd this request to IANA asking them to assign 
the values ?

Regards
Mukesh

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:47:52 -0400

> to [email-masked] (copying secretriate).

IMO, what you should do is write an ID, and take it to the appropriate
WG. If you can't find interest, you probably should drop the idea.

I'm not a fan of allowing the use of ICMP for non IETF-sponsored
efforts. There are lots of other protocols (e.g., UDP) that can just
as easily be used in the vast majority of cases.

Thomas

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:24:37 +0300 (EEST)

> as easily be used in the vast majority of cases.

Agree.

This seems like a crusade for "better" IANA codepoint allocation.. but 
IMHO a single document like this isn't the right channel to pursue it.  
Just put in something defined by the IANA considerations RFC, and 
argue for (or against) a new kind of allocation scheme independent of 
this particular specification.

I.e., I don't see what's so majorly broken that we have an urgent need
to fix it *here*.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings