Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-02

[Ballot comment]
As a matter of curiosity (this does not impact the IESG 5742 assessment of the document) - why is the recommended approval policy for the majority of the registries 'Specification Required' but in a couple of places 'RFC required' is specified?

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are seven
new registries to be created for the Bundle protocol.

IANA will use the guidance provided in Section 3 of the approved
document in creating the seven required new registries. IANA understands
that each of the registries is new and that Section 3 of the approved
document provides registration rules, initial values, a reference and a
description of the registry and its contents.

State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation.
I was assigned the task of review draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries for the IESG. The purpose is to make the RFC 5742 check for non-IETF RFCs, i.e., to ensure that the documents do not allocate IANA numbers reserved for standards track RFCs, collide with IETF WG work, etc. My recommendation to the IESG is the following:

  1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
      document and IETF work.

Note that this review is not a technical review, the IRTF is entirely responsible for the technical content. However, as a personal feedback I noted the following:

Section 2 should probably mention that there are values represented as normal bit fields as well, not just SDNVs. (I was confused at first when you talked about the 64 bit limit but the first few values were 8 bit entities.)

In Section 3.3 you list only the allocated values, but in other sections you list also what values are for private use or unallocated. I would use the latter style even in Section 3.3 (even if it is sort of variable length, it still has an upper limit of 64). Same for 3.4.

Section 3.5 uses binary format for numbers without explicitly stating that its binary. Kind of obvious, but I would use 0b in front.

> concensus
> custidy
Typos.

From: Aaron Falk

This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review of draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries [1] to be published an an Informational IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See [2] for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Elwyn Davies .

--aaron
IRTF Chair

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries
[2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/40