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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

13.01.2011 18:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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".
That is a citation of RFC 5226

<...>
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details of the namespace.  In
particular, instructions *MUST* include:
<...>
5) Initial assignments and reservations.  Clear instructions should be
provided to identify any initial assignments or registrations.  In
addition, any ranges that are to be reserved  for "Private Use",
"Reserved", **"Unassigned"**, etc. should be *clearly indicated*.
<...>
>
>> ...
>>>> 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
>