Subject: Updated version posted: draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-01.txt

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:29:39 -0700

Folks-

 Kireeti and I updated the draft based on the comments we got via e-mail and at
 the meeting in Seoul. Please check the new rev. We will be asking Bill to Last
 Call the document within a few weeks. Send comments to [email-masked],
 please.

 The draft is available at:

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-01.txt

 For your convenience, the htmldiff is available at:
 
   http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ietf/draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-00-01-diff.html
 
 Abstract from the draft:

   This memo discusses earlier allocation of code points by IANA as a
   remedy to the problem created by the "Standards Action" IANA policy
   for protocols where, by the IETF process, implementation and
   deployment experience is desired or required prior to publication.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:11:19 +0300 (EEST)

>  Call the document within a few weeks. Send comments to [email-masked],

Seems like good stuff.  First time I read this -- a few rather minor 
comments below.

semi-substantial
----------------

   If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the processes in this memo
   do not apply.

==> why do not conditions (c) and (d) be considered as blocking?  What's the
difference with these processed?

Or do you mean that (a) or (b) are the "show-stopper" issues which MUST have
been fulfilled before even considering this approach, and c)-d) must be
filled in any case, but that's then up to the WG (and chairs) whether 
they consider these filled or not?

The similar comment applies to:

   2) The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
      allocations described in section 2 are met, particularly
      conditions (c) and (d).

....

   [3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
       Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004

==> this wasn't used in the body; remove or add reference?

editorial
---------

   performs allocation.  However, in situations where codepoints are a
   scarce resource and/or the IETF community is willing to retain tight
   control of the protocol, policies such as IESG Approval, IETF

==> s/is willing/wants/ (there's a nuance difference but I think the latter
is closer)

   2. IANA allocates codepoints silently used for other extensions.
      Different extensions will collide.

==> please reword, I didn't quite understand the "silently used" parts. 
Prefix with "that someone has illegitimately" ?

   1) The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
      allocation the Working Group chairs, specifying which code points

==> s/allocation/allocation to/

   immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations;
   and process overburden of IANA itself.  The processes described here

==> I find "process overburden" a bit difficult to parse.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:11:19 +0300 (EEST)

semi-substantial
----------------

....

editorial
---------