IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] method of allocation of reserved bits to extensions

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Thu, 26 May 2011 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BC113002A for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F14O-ESEhffF for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3F2130029 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so3493790qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.79.196 with SMTP id q4mr1097874qck.132.1306448919129; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.218.5 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DDE85EC.2010001@ericsson.com>
References: <BANLkTi=vOQDtL5GobitKe8yiUoQFb2go_Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikaOXg0u+4d8Ly6OxUQ7PFUU=udgQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikiUkivJitZGU-+q6wBfJ3VW45F8g@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTindmLQ0KE6K5qUX2ue+=hoLUaznLA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim9w83iSY-TH1yuVAUXxypJk_tmrw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimnMBwNgP_e29exT6dUkp60s2xU3g@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi==RTfqaYFT3CQs1pM5Tb501rk2Vg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinqQiMQ4N1vWjyCe682BmdisW-=KA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTik1a6CEA8LiiLgsnBt9qHCaybmWfg@mail.gmail.com> <4DBA3809.4010004@oracle.com> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C11402DB23F@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110524234152.03017c30@resistor.net> <4DDE85EC.2010001@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:28:38 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHmTWCpigP-nhCSqNMxiGade292w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] method of allocation of reserved bits to extensions
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:28:41 -0000

On 27 May 2011 02:55, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:
> After discussion with Gabriel,
> taking in consideration the long mail discussion and different positions on
> this topic,
> we have decided that a IANA strict assignment policy is the right way to
> handle the allocation of reserved bits

OK,  but can we add some text to the specification saying  that
experimental/proprietary extensions must not squat on opcodes/bits
pending IANA allocation, but instead put them in the payload until
such as they are allocated opcodes/bits.

cheers

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email