Re: [Curdle] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02: (with COMMENT)

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

Would adding the following lines be an adequate replacement?

0 - 99  | Retained by Symantec | [This RFC]
128+   | Retained by Symantec | [This RFC]

I think this is more in line with normality that having a list of "this value open for registration".

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:42 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Daniel Migault
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think it would be useful to include explicit entries in the initial IANA table
> indicating those values which are currently unassigned (i.e., add a range for
> 101-109 and 116-127.) For this use in particular, where overstepping the
> bounds of the allocation would impinge on codes retained by Symantec, this
> seems even more important than typical.
>