Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers
draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Mark Townsley |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Kessens |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2006-11-08
|
05 | (System) | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Pasi Eronen. |
2006-06-30
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-06-26
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-06-26
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-06-26
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-06-20
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Kessens |
2006-06-15
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-06-15
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-05.txt |
2006-06-05
|
05 | Jari Arkko | 3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill. 16/5/06: Bill … 3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill. 16/5/06: Bill submits a new revision, document placed on next telechat agenda. 5/6/06: Agreeing with Bill on what to do add to the document. Awaiting David's comment. |
2006-06-05
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Note field has been cleared by Jari Arkko |
2006-05-26
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-05-25 |
2006-05-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2006-05-25
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot discuss] I normally feel that it is inappropriate to enter a DISCUSS at this late stage as this document was already discussed at an … [Ballot discuss] I normally feel that it is inappropriate to enter a DISCUSS at this late stage as this document was already discussed at an earlier telechat but I believe there are unfortunately significant issues that need to be addressed. Due to the above, I am going to clear this DISCUSS without a resolution if Bill does not agree with it's contents. I have two problems: I believe that the whole layout of this document is quite awkward: Section like: '2.1. IPv4 IP Version field The IPv4 Version field is always 4.' are weird to say the least. There is no such thing as an 'IPv4 Version field'. I only know the 'IP version field'. I think it would have made way more sense to start with a section that describes generic IP packets and states: The IP Version field is always 4 for IPv4. The IP Version field is always 6 for IPv6. There are no experimental IP Version values defined. And then go into more detail for IPv4 and IPv6 in seperate sections. Also, since this document defines test addresses for other uses as well, why does it not define a range for ipv4 test addresses in '2.4.1. IPv4 Unicast'? It also fails to mention that one can get experimental addresses from some RIRs (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/experimental-alloc.html). |
2006-05-25
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by David Kessens |
2006-05-25
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2006-05-24
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ross Callon by Ross Callon |
2006-05-24
|
05 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings |
2006-05-24
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu |
2006-05-24
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Lars Eggert |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, para. 12: > When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary > to use some sort of protocol … [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, para. 12: > When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary > to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually > test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a > closed environment. This document reserves some ranges of numbers > for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to > support experimentation has been identified, and describes the > numbers that have already been reserved by other documents. Instead of "specific protocols", include the list from the title? I didn't read the title at first and the list of protocols isn't anywhere in the text of the document - it may be useful to put the list somewhere in the Introduction, too :-) Section 3.7., para. 1: > This document assignes two values for the Routing Type field in the > IPv6 Routing Header, TBDY and TBDZ. Nit: s/assignes/assigns/ Section 9., para. 3: > When experimental code points are deployed within an administratively > self-contained network domain, the network administrators should > ensure that each code point is used consistently to avoid > interference between experiments. When experimental code points are > used in traffic that crosses multiple adminstrative domains Nit: s/adminstrative/administrative/ |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Yes by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-05-22
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-05-21
|
05 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault |
2006-05-16
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-05-25 by Jari Arkko |
2006-05-16
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: '3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill. 16/5/06: … [Note]: '3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill. 16/5/06: Bill submits a new revision, document placed on next telechat agenda.' added by Jari Arkko |
2006-05-16
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-04.txt |
2006-05-15
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley |
2006-05-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: '3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill.' added … [Note]: '3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to Bill.' added by Jari Arkko |
2006-04-26
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] Section 10.2 is presumably meant to be "Informative References" |
2006-04-26
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
2006-04-25
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2006-04-25
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-04-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-03.txt |
2006-03-25
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Shepherding AD has been changed to Jari Arkko from Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-24
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-20
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: '3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address discusses.' added by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Jari Arkko |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discuss. Why does RFC3692 seem to exclude TCP and UDP port numbers as necessary to have experimental values allocated? … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discuss. Why does RFC3692 seem to exclude TCP and UDP port numbers as necessary to have experimental values allocated? "In some cases, obtaining a new number is ... not even necessary (e.g., TCP and UDP port numbers for testing purposes)" This draft does in fact plan to allocate TCP and UDP numbers for testing and experimentation. It seems that this is not consistent with RFC3692, though it's not entirely clear why this was done in RFC3692. Not sure what to do about this situation, hence the desire to discuss. |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2006-03-16
|
05 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2006-03-15
|
05 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2006-03-15
|
05 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will make various registrations as described in the IANA Considerations section for experimentation use. |
2006-03-15
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2006-03-15
|
05 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-15
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] RFC 2119 is listed but not cited. |
2006-03-14
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Should the security considerations (or perhaps a new experiment considerations section) talk about the consequences if these values are used by … [Ballot discuss] Should the security considerations (or perhaps a new experiment considerations section) talk about the consequences if these values are used by two different experiments that are going on at the same time. The consequences seem pretty obvious to me, but a word of caution might be appropriate. Thoughts? |
2006-03-14
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2006-03-13
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2006-03-13
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-03-13
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] I think Geoff Huston's comment needs to be fixed. Quoting http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40438.html : 3.4.1. IPv6 Unicast Addresses No experimental IPv6 addresses are defined. … [Ballot discuss] I think Geoff Huston's comment needs to be fixed. Quoting http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40438.html : 3.4.1. IPv6 Unicast Addresses No experimental IPv6 addresses are defined. For certain experiments, Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193] may be useful. It is not appropriate to use addresses in the documentation prefix [RFC3849] for experimentation. Whereas RFC2928 states: "The block of Sub-TLA IDs assigned to the IANA (i.e., 2001: 0000::/29 - 2001:01F8::/29) is for assignment for testing and experimental usage to support activities such as the 6bone, and for new approaches like exchanges." [RFC2928] I also note that draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01.txt (currently with David Kessens in AD review) advocates formalizing this with the creation of an IANA IPv6 special use registry. |
2006-03-13
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2006-03-12
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Please evaluate the -03 version at: http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/tmp/draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-03.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Created "Approve" ballot |
2006-03-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-01
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2006-02-01
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2006-02-01
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2006-01-31
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Last Call was requested by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-31
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-31
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2006-01-31
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2006-01-31
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2006-01-31
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-31
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Note field has been cleared by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-23
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-01-23
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt |
2006-01-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: '1/9/2006: Bill is in the process of updating the document.' added by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-01.txt |
2006-01-09
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | Draft Added by Margaret Wasserman in state Publication Requested |
2005-07-12
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-00.txt |