IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4960 IANA actions

Randy Stewart <randall@lakerest.net> Tue, 26 October 2010 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <randall@lakerest.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E413A6910 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B0k+ArhTZSVU for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lakerest.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:240:585:2:213:d4ff:fef3:2d8d]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4AC3A682E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.53] ([10.1.1.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakerest.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9QBbQTg023855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:37:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from randall@lakerest.net)
Subject: Re: RFC4960 IANA actions
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Randy Stewart <randall@lakerest.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <01d301cb74e7$568f7260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:37:25 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2941DF89-526C-4946-96DE-8654243FAD6D@lakerest.net>
References: <20100823124502.7BD433A6A2E@core3.amsl.com><4C77BCD1.9010706@cisco.com> <4C7E8A4F.5080807@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <005201cb4de6$40c41440$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <AB2F4404-EF37-422F-BAF9-A546FFE7A039@lurchi.franken.de> <001501cb4e7b$f2fcf880$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <87C786EA-F4E6-4868-944A-6989942C19A8@lurchi.franken.de> <01d301cb74e7$568f7260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:36:00 -0000

Tom:

I think this is a mistake in the document.

There are two things that can be extended..

Chunk type

And

Chunk Parameters

Both of them need IETF Consensus action...

So 14.1 should be something like:
The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an
IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434].  Documentation of the
chunk type MUST contain the following information:


Somehow the "parameter" snuck in here and we missed it.

R
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:24 AM, t.petch wrote:

> Looking at RFC4960, I see
> 
> 14.1.  IETF-Defined Chunk Extension
> 
>   The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
>   IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434].  Documentation of the
>   chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:
> .........
> 
> 14.2.  IETF-Defined Chunk Parameter Extension
> 
>   The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
>   IETF Consensus action as defined in [RFC2434].  Documentation of the
>   chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:
> ....
> 
> which is not wrong, but does seem misleading; I think that 14.1 is really about
> new chunk type codes and not about new chunk parameter type codes; or
> is there some subtlety I am missing?
> 
> Tom Petch
> 

-----
Randall Stewart
randall@lakerest.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email