IETF Logo Mail Archive

RFC4960 IANA actions

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 26 October 2010 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
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 C9FB63A67FD for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 7iUmahKWf8C7 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr07.btconnect.com [213.123.20.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BDF3A681D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host86-156-136-67.range86-156.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.156.136.67]) by c2bthomr07.btconnect.com with SMTP id ARB86142; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:26:35 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <01d301cb74e7$568f7260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
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>
Subject: RFC4960 IANA actions
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:24:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4CC69EBD.0165, actions=TAG
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr07.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.4CC69ECE.0089, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
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 09:25:02 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email