[Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt

Focusing on one point (authors, please respond to the other issues directly)

Elwyn Davies wrote:

>  Even were it to be published I am unclear why this document should be
>  Informational. It is documenting a proposed extension to a standard
>  (although, if the authors wished, it could have made use of the
>  existing Vendor-specific tag and then it would legitimately have been
>  an Informational document on that front - the new message types are
>  another matter) and as such ought to be aiming for PS.

This document is extending PPPoE, which by no means is a standard of any 
kind. I'm not sure what status other than Informational I could ask for 
here.

>
>  Assuming this document is approved, it needs an IANA considerations
>  section. I think that it effectively creates two registries for
>  PPPoE discovery message ids and discovery option tags which (AFAICS)
>  weren't setup by RFC2516 although the TAG registry is implicit in the
>  wording of RFC2516.
>

We intend to ask for an IANA space for the PPPoE tag registry. For this, 
and other PPPoE extensions.

draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-00.txt

- Mark

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art