IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
RFC 6328

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-01-07)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-01-06)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

Abstain (2010-01-10)
No email
send info
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.