Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

OK, I'll add registries.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Mirja:
>
> The assignments imply a standards action for additional assignments.   The WG review did not request further details, but if the IESG feels this is appropriate (and it may well be), it could be changes to IANA registries without changing the sense of the WG LC.
>
> As WG co-chair, I do not think we need to go back to the WG to discuss this and Donald can set-up the registries in the document.
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:11 PM
> To: Donald Eastlake
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> I guess it’s up to the wg to decide if a registry is needed or not. I was just wondering why it was decided to not have one and wanted to double-check that this is the right thing to do. I’m fine with that.
>
> I would however, recommend to add a sentence saying that a document that would want to use any additional value would also need to set up a registry. And further, while table 4.1 says "Available for assignment by IETF Review“, table 3.1 doesn’t; i would recommend to add this there as well.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
>> Am 04.07.2016 um 20:14 schrieb Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>:
>>
>> Hi Mirja,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. See below.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: No Objection
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>> One question: Why are there no IANA registries for tables 3.1 and 4.1?
>>
>> I believe that the first time a code point is specified, it is a
>> judgement call whether or not to create an IANA registry. If not, then
>> obviously the first subsequent document that defines additional values
>> needs to set up a registry. But if it doesn't appear that there are
>> likely to be any additional values for some time, I don't think it is
>> necessary to specify a registry and decide on an allocation policy
>> right away. By the time the first additional value needs to be
>> assigned the level of demand and the registration policy may be
>> clearer.
>>
>> However, if the IESG would like, it would certainly be simple enough
>> to have these be IANA registries. (If that were done now I would
>> suggest an allocation policy of IETF Review due to the limited number
>> of values available.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> ===============================
>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [e-mail]
>>
>
>