IANA considerations in rfc2461bis

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 12 August 2005 16:48 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E3chu-0008A8-8p; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:48:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E3chq-0008A3-CV for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:48:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05341 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E3dGI-0007AO-Ff for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:24:12 -0400
Received: from [81.187.254.247] (helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1E3chh-0007pM-H0; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:48:21 +0100
Message-ID: <42FCD321.9000303@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:49:37 +0100
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: narten@raleigh.ibm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: IANA considerations in rfc2461bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Hi.

Having done a consistency check across all the ICMP updates, I believe 
that the IANA considerations of this draft need an overhaul.

In particular:
- the master policies for types are (or will be) defined in the RFC that 
comes from draft-ipngwg-icmp-v3 instead of RFC2780.
- this document needs to define/continue the registry and explicitly 
define the policy for the Neighbour Discovery options (since this hasn't 
previously been properly defined).
- it should probably explicitly define the ICMP types and ND options 
which are being continued from RFC2461 as they don't have an explicit 
registration in RFC2461.

Regards,
Elwyn

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------