Subject: RE: IOTP v1.0 IANA Considerations

From: David Burdett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:31:32 -0000

Following on from this I plan to change the IOTP spec to read as
follows:

"Codes used by IOTP are registered by [IANA] so that new values can be
co-ordinated based on an IETF consensus as defined in RFC 2434.

The element types, attributes names to which this procedure applies is
shown in the table below together with the original values for
attributes which apply. For more up-to-date information on valid values
and how these relate to versions of the IOTP specification contact
IANA."

... there then follows a table which identifies where IANA procedures
apply.

There are in fact several instances, apart from Brand names, where new
codes may be defined in the future so I've changed the specification to
reflect this. I have also changed the current "user defined" name to be
start with "x-" rather than x-ddd:rrr, removing the restriction that
there must be a colon in the middle of the name.

Comments please

David

>----------
>From: 	Patrik Fältström[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	14 January 1999 22:05
>To: 	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: IOTP v1.0 IANA Considerations
>
>At 00.42 -0500 1999-01-15, [email-masked] wrote:
>> If IOTP v1.0 is issued as
>> Informational and can't have an IANA Considerations section, perphas we can
>> just punt on the issue or include a sentence saying that allocation of
>> additionalvlues will be described in a future document...
>
>I have not heard any rule stating that the IANA can not hold 
>registration procedures for Informational RFCs. Anyone can ask IANA 
>to register anything.
>
>I am happy to see this IANA registering the values regardless of the 
>status of the RFC.
>
>    Patrik
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Area Director, Applications Area               Email: [email-masked]
>IETF                                             URL: http://paf.se
>                                          PGP Key ID: 0xBD236602
>
>   In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
>   but in practice, there is.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Message addressed to: [email-masked]
>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
>body to: [email-masked]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message addressed to: [email-masked]
Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
body to: [email-masked]

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:32:58 +0100

> ... there then follows a table which identifies where IANA procedures

This is good.

You should see that you have instructions for IANA, and for the 
applicant. For example, a form which should be filled in when 
registering a value for the applicant, and for IANA the rules under 
which each requested value is compared to see if IANA can accept it 
or not.

For example:

"When registering a name of type FOO, the following information 
should be sent to IANA:

  Company Name:
  Contact Email Address:
  Contact Name:
  Prefered value:

The prefered value have to fulfil the requirements for FOO in the 
ABNF in section 9.3.2.1.... in this document."

This for each one of the values that IANA should register.

And, yes, this _will_ make the document longer. A variation thereof 
is to have the "Registration Procedures" as a separate document.

     Patrik

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:19:27 -0500

Sounds good to me,
Donald

Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA
[email-masked]   tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833
Notes: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS

home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA
[email-masked]   tel: 1-914-276-2668

David Burdett <[email-masked]> on 01/20/99 09:31:32 PM

To:   "'Ietf Trade WG'" <[email-masked]>
cc:    (bcc: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM)
Subject:  RE: IOTP v1.0 IANA Considerations

Comments please

David