Re: [6lo] mic comment about layers

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Le 20/07/2015 19:34, Kerry Lynn a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     I wanted to make a comment at the mic about layering, during the
>>     IANA registry discussion.
>>
>>     As I hear the discussion about liaison with ITU, it looks to me as a
>>     ping-pong of statements.
>>
>>     Who is responsible to allocate these codepoints - IANA or ITU?
>>
>>     Even if IANA makes a registry for it, are we sure that ITU will not
>>     allocate in the future other codepoints beyond what IANA allocates?
>>     And, should we care?
>>
>>     My oppinion on this is that IANA should not allocate numbers to
>>     whatever runs below IPv6 headers.
>>
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xhtml
>>
>
> That is a reflection of what IEEE controls.  It's IEEE who controls, and
> IANA 'mirrors' it.
>
> <kel>
Yes, sorry - I should have provided more context.  It seems there's a well
defined process
[RFC 7042] for coordination between IEEE and IETF and expert review is
required.  Perhaps
something similar can be worked out in this case.
</kel>

I dont have the same feeling that the same happens between ITU and 6lo
> here.  It looks more like a competition between who allocates what.  The
> format of it is not agreed either.
>
> And - worse - the 6lo WG does not seem to be queried oppinion, but imposed
> decisions.
>
> This is not a way to move forward, I fully disagree.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>>     Let the underlying layers (below IP) offer IEEE-like interfaces,
>>     with EtherTypes.  That's what works.
>>
>>     Alex
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     6lo mailing list
>>     6lo@ietf.org <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>>
>>
>>
>