Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
RFC 7370

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2014-08-14)
No email
send info
Thanks for the very constructive engagement between IANA and the document author.

This is a good document.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -00)
No email
send info
Get-ART reviewer Robert Sparks concurs with Pete's observation about the weirdness of PS classification, but it may not be so important (IMHO) to fix this. Lets focus on other things, like Adrian's Discuss.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2014-08-04 for -00)
No email
send info
I'm a little confused about the state in which this document leaves the registration policies, so maybe someone can clarify. I think what this document says is that to obtain an early allocation in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry, an IETF WG document is necessary (along with a bunch of other things including WG consensus, AD approval, and DE approval). But since the policy for non-early (final) allocations is expert review and there does not seem to be any explicit document requirement, it's possible that a final allocation can be made based on an individual draft or a document from another SDO, or with no document at all. Is that the desired outcome? It seems a bit backwards in that on paper it might be easier to get a final allocation than an early one.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -00)
No email
send info
I support Alissa's point (and Adrian's soon-to-be points).

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -00)
No email
send info
Adrian has this covered.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -00)
No email
send info
Slightly weird to have this be Standards Track.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection