Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi George,

on 2006-05-19 20:32 Tsirtsis, George said the following:
> Yes, I think Vijay is right. It is up to IANA and implementations need
> to be ready to change to the assigned numbers when the IANA decides. In
> the mean time I-D authors can suggest reasonable values just in case
> they get it right and so they do not have to change ;-)

No, please don't do this.  Instead, as I just mentioned in my note to
Vidya, please use the values assigned for experimental work, and leave
the value in the draft as TBA.

Regards,

	Henrik

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:21 PM
>> To: Alexandru Petrescu
>> Cc: ml-nemo WG
>> Subject: Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type
>> 
>> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> > I've been pointed that there seems to be a potential conflict on
> NEMOv4
>> > Mobile Network Extension Type and FA-Err Type.
>> >
>> > NEMOv4 uses a new Type (to be assigned by IANA) in Mobile Network
>> > Extension.  We suggested in the draft that it be 45.
>> >
>> > FA-ERR draft-ietf-mip4-faerr-02.txt uses Type 45 for FA Error
> Extension
>> > (already assigned by IANA).  The draft does not specify 45, just
> says
>> > TBA by IANA.  IANA seems to have assigned it, see
>> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers.
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-mobileip-gen-key-01.txt implemented in dynamics 0.8.1
> uses 45
>> > too, but I think this can be ignored, because  I think this work has
>> > been evolved into draft-rfc3012bis which uses Type 24.
>> >
>> > To solve the issue between NEMOv4 and FA-ERR I suggest that we use
> Type
>> > 46 - and not 45 - in NEMOv4 implementation, until IANA assigns a
> Type
>> > for NEMOv4 Mobile Network Extension.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> 
>> IMO, you should leave it to be assigned by the IANA.
>> not suggest any value at all. IANA will just pick
>> the next available one.
>> 
>> Vijay
> 
> 
>