Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints' to BCP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:41:15 -0500

Alex/Kireeti,

Does it make sense to cover the early assignment policy for 
the requests that come from outside the IETF in the early
allocation draft ?

Look at section 6.1 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt
that talks about similar things.

Regards
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext The IESG
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 4:18 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: 'Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track
> Codepoints' to BCP 
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter 
> to consider the 
> following document:
> 
> - 'Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints '
>    <draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-02.txt> as a BCP
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2004-09-02.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kompella-zinin-early
-allocation-02.txt

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

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

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:00:07 -0700

Mukesh,

  I'm afraid that would have to be a completely different document
  and a completely different discussion, as the doc specifically
  addresses the situation with the "Standards Action" allocation
  policy and presumably from-outside-IETF requests wouldn't result
  in an IETF standards action.

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:42:22 -0400

FWIW, I too agree that this document shouldn't deal with requests for
non-WG documents. The issues are very different.

> that talks about similar things.

Looking at just this section, I think some additional clarifications
are needed:

>    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.

>    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?

Thomas