Subject: [trill] Fwd: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-04

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:26:19 -0400

AD Barry Leiba has filed a discuss on
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension on the grounds that the allocation
criteria of Standards Action amy be too high for extended header bits.
I am inclined to think he has a good point. Is there any objection to
changing this to IETF Review?

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 5 --
Please explain (briefly -- a sentence or two will surely do) the reason
for selecting Standards Action for this registry.  I'd prefer it if that
sentence or two were in the IANA Considerations, unless there's a reason
not to put it there.

I understand that there is a limited number of bits to be given out, so
freely allocating them for the asking would be harmful.  Still, Standards
Action is very heavyweight: did you consider IETF Review (which could
allow Informational or Experimental documents to do allocations, with
community consensus and IESG approval), or even Specification Required
(where you could give instructions that the designated expert exert tight
control over the allocations)?