[dtn] Re: [EXT] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-03: (with COMMENT)

[Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>]

I see no real need to separate Private from Experimental.  In both cases they are both "Not for interoperable use", so having separate reserved ranges seems authoritarian.

But just my personal view.

Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sipos, Brian J. [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 30 September 2024 14:28
> To: Éric Vyncke; The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [dtn] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-
> admin-iana-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Éric,
> I missed responding to your specific feedback earlier. About expanding the
> abbreviation this should be done for consistency. As far as the registry link
> right now this document follows the IANA registration practices [1] described
> in "Other considerations" to avoid the file name and URI fragment parts.
> 
> Regarding the difference of reservation between private use and experimental
> use I was trying to be consistent with other BP code point registries like the
> Block Types [2] makes a single block reserved for both private and
> experimental use. I understand the desire to separate the two concerns in
> code point space and for BPv7 there is plenty of space available (each could
> get their own 65k block for example) for each use but I also don't want to
> break consistency with the other BP registries. Do chairs or others have any
> thoughts or opinions about this?
> 
> [1] https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration
> [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#block-types
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 5:14 AM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: [EXT] [dtn] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-
> > iana-03: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > APL external email warning: Verify sender [e-mail]
> before
> > clicking links or attachments
> >
> > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-
> > ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for the work done in this document, just some minor non-blocking
> > comments.
> >
> > In section 2, please expand or add a reference for ADU.
> >
> > Strong suggestion to split the range between experimental and private as we
> do
> > not want a private/local use overlapping with an experimental/global use.
> >
> > The URL used for the IANA registry should include the fragment, i.e.,
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#admin-record-
> types
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dtn mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]