Re: [rrg] [irsg] IRSG Poll Request: ILNP document suite
"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Sat, 07 April 2012 08:15 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D2621F8525 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqEyJAAp+pQy for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5870421F84FE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,384,1330934400"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="639233745"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2012 01:15:28 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.240]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q378FR89017004; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.117]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:15:27 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] [irsg] IRSG Poll Request: ILNP document suite
Thread-Index: AQHNFJaW55CKg+qaS0inC8IdSmbc4w==
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:15:26 +0000
Message-ID: <56DE279D-F2ED-4344-9FC2-C3A3D07D232A@netapp.com>
References: <4F7F6B14.4050102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <C4A797AA-0A87-4D0E-82CD-10059C22E394@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4A797AA-0A87-4D0E-82CD-10059C22E394@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D488AD64-DF00-45AE-8F3E-DE76C1E21664"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>, "<rrg@irtf.org>" <rrg@irtf.org>, Saleem Bhatti <saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk>, Ran Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rrg] [irsg] IRSG Poll Request: ILNP document suite
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:15:46 -0000
On Apr 7, 2012, at 0:44, Tony Li wrote: > AFAIK, it's perfectly kosher to have IANA requests in IRTF experimental track RFCs. Agreed. (Unless of course the registration policy would be "Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", etc. We can't allocate codepoints from registries that have those policies, nor can we create registries with those policies. NB: I don't know if this applies to the ILNP policies.) Lars