Subject: IOTP v1.0 IANA Considerations

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:42:17 -0500

I still have not been able to determine whether an Informational RFC that
comes from a WG and is approved by the IESG can invoke IANA facilities.  If
it can, that would remove one of the main reasons for possibly aiming for
Proposed Standard instead of Informational for IOTP v1.0.

The place this applies to IOTP v1.0 is the BrandIDDomain element and the
BrandIDValue elements in the IOTP BrandIDDomain.  The technique of having a
list on an IOTP web site with no specified update mechanism seems pretty
inappropriate. It would be better to use IANA for this.  I just noticed
there is also a problem that the current draft just refers to section 3.7.3
for user defined BrandIDDomains. This is a problem because, as specified in
3.7.3, user defined id's have an embedded colon (":") which is the
terminator for BrandIDDomain.

My suggestion is to change the BrandID definition to say that user defined
BrandIDDomain's are just "x-" followed by a domain name, to drop references
to any IOTP web site, and to add the IANA Considerations section below (and
add RFC 2434 to the references section).  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...

X.X  IANA Considerations

New values of BrandIDDomain and new values of  BrandIDValue within the IOTP
BrandIDDomain, other than user defined values as specified in section x.x,
are registered by IANA based on an IETF consensus as defined in RFC 2434.
The initial defined values of BrandIDDomain are "SET" and "IOTP".

Thanks,
Donald

Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Internet: [email-masked]
Notes: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS
1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833, 1-914-276-2668(home)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:05:38 +0100

At 00.42 -0500 1999-01-15, [email-masked] wrote:
> If IOTP v1.0 is issued as

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]