IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points
RFC 7385

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Barry Leiba) Yes

Comment (2014-08-12 for -05)
No email
send info
This is a very fine document that does what needs to be done.  Please don't take any further comments as any sort of criticism of that.  Please note and consider the substantive comments after the rant in the following paragraph.

As we've noted before, the IESG itself doesn't know what to do with this sort of thing, but I think this is a perfect example of a document that "updates" a Standards Track document, but should not, itself, be Standards Track.  Informational is the correct status of this document, and I urge the IESG to make it so.  I see no reason to *require* all updates to Standards Track documents to be Standards Track, and this document changes nothing that would indicate that status.  If it defined new values, it probably should be Standards Track.  But as it just creates the registry and registers what was already defined, it should not.

Now, substantive comments -- not blocking (note the "Yes" ballot), but please consider making these changes:

   The allocation policy for values 0x00 to 0xFA is IETF Review.  Values
   0xFB to 0xFE are experimental and are not to be assigned. 0xFF is
   reserved.

1. I think you need a citation to RFC 5226 here, and a normative reference.

2. FB to FE are not to be assigned; what about FF?  I suggest "0xFF is reserved for possible extensibility, and may only be assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]."

3. For the values you register from 6514, you give the reference as "[RFC 6514] [RFC-to-be]".  I suggest just "[RFC 6514]", as this RFC says nothing substantive that would be useful to someone looking up what, say, 0x03 means.

4. I don't think Section 2 has any value, and I would simply remove it.  Section 4 says all that's needed.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-18 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree with Barry's point that this document does not need to be Standards Track.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-18 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree that this shouldn't be on the Standards Track.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection