IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
draft-eastlake-nlpid-iana-considerations-04
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-01-07)
Unknown
First note that the NLPID was defined before there was an IETF. This is why none of the space was assigned for IETF use. My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the reason that we need IANA to assign NLPIDs is that the ISO OSI effort is no longer functionally able to do this. If this is right, then I think that we might as well explicitly say so in the document. Also, if I have this right, then I don't see why we couldn't assign any unused codes which were originally assigned to ISO (leaving the ITU codes for ITU use).
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-01-06)
Unknown
I support Adrian's discuss. A few nits: section 2, paragraph 2. First sentence - isn't the important point that NLPIDs are used in a number of *IETF* protocols? The second sentence doesn't quite parse; it is missing the NLPID. Perhaps appending "all make use of NLPIDs" would complete the thought? Section 3 "or are otherwise of interest" seems a bit vague. Perhaps "or are identified by the IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6" would capture the idea more clearly.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
(2010-01-10)
Unknown
While this is a fine document in all other respects, I am concerned by the fact that IETF doesn't seem to have authority to allocate NLPIDs, as the registry is controlled by ISO/ITU-T.