Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes

Adrian,
	Is this a general question or one that is focused on a specific
experiment?  If an experiment is to take place privately, as this one
is, is there any need for an assignment?

Lou

On 12/12/2012 10:08 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi RSVP-Directorate,
> 
> The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG evaluation
> and post-IESTF last call.
> 
> The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its
> experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA registry
> observes...
> 
>> For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25,
>> 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the
>> default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action,
>> unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this.
> 
> What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation on
> existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out?
> 
> An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and
> include the experimental CTypes there.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rsvp-dir mailing list
> rsvp-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
> 
> 
> 
>