IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Dan Romascanu) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
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).
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
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.
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
Magnus Westerlund No Objection
Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) Abstain
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.