IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 13 January 2011 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D653A6BB2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.055
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2g1nJJZZX+bg for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7CDB3A6BAC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2011 15:58:30 -0000
Received: from p508FA62D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.166.45] by mail.gmx.net (mp026) with SMTP; 13 Jan 2011 16:58:30 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX188teAovX88BSFnh4YrnejnC7RTbTb7cr8Wqg7SSp /49bH9EihZqiG0
Message-ID: <4D2F211E.4080207@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:58:22 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-pim-registry-03.txt
References: <AANLkTin+wxG6oSrvux6DuqZNA1hLGALmozfxzhhGxT3+@mail.gmail.com> <01bc01cbb25c$41590700$c40b1500$@huawei.com> <4D2DB36C.7070107@gmx.de> <01da01cbb264$2f1462d0$8d3d2870$@huawei.com> <4D2DBC48.2080302@gmx.de> <AANLkTikTks15pML38XSAuJZY-yRmDXdQBhe12ynWq+Pz@mail.gmail.com> <0FCCAC8F1FBB48FDA5A5C347233271AA@DougEwell> <4D2EB195.60604@gmx.de> <AANLkTi=6pMxR56z3safr3gQ0q8Aw8sJ3WAcRfwOuNiUk@mail.gmail.com> <4D2EE2A7.5060805@gmx.de> <4D2F1F8F.5060304@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2F1F8F.5060304@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:56:12 -0000

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".

>> This should probably be raised as erratum.
>>
>>> So the document specifying the regsitry MUST mention what are
>>> Unassigned. Moreover, IMO, it would be useful to assign one value for
>>> Experimentation.
>>
>> No. should != must.
> See below.

Even further? :-)

>> There are tons of registries where this is not the case; namely all or
>> most of those where the values are strings, not numbers.
> 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.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email