Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-pim-registry-03.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 13.01.2011 17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> That sounds like an editorial error to me.
>>>>
>>>> "any ranges to be *reserved* for .... "Unassigned"..."
>>>>
>>>> doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
>>> Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning is that unassigned and
>>> reserved values MUST (yes, must, that is in RFC 5226; see citation
>>> below) be mentioned.
>>
>> I do not see a citation "below".
> I meant in the previous message.

Please cite where the spec says "must" or "MUST".

> ...
>>> The strings registries are rather exceptions from the rule I cited
>>> above.
>>
>> Well, we have many of them. The rules should takes those into account.
> That, IMO, was the mistake of authors of RFC 5226 that didn't take the
> text registries into considerations. We have no way to correct that now.
> ...

We can raise errata, and have the authors and the IESG approve them. We 
can also use common sense, and note that IANA apparently doesn't enforce 
these rules when they do not make sense.

Best regards, Julian