IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points
RFC 7537

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-04 for -02)
No email
send info
Pete's comments make perfect sense to me.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2015-03-05 for -02)
No email
send info
Pete's comments make perfect sense to me, too.  That said, I think Section 2.2 is not wrong and not confusing the way it is, so it's not a big deal either way (if I had to be picky, I'd say that with respect to the specification of the registration policy at the top of the section, 5226 uses "Experimental Use", not "Experimental" ("Experimental" is for labelling the code points, as later in the section); but I would never be so picky).

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2015-03-03 for -02)
No email
send info
It's not at all clear to me why this document is going for Standards Track or why it updates 4379 and 6424, nor does the ballot nor shepherd writeup explain. It's creating a registry, which doesn't change the protocol in either of those documents. Seems to me fine that it be Informational, and that it doesn't update anything.

2.2, 2.3, 2.4:

OLD
   The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:

      0-250    Standards Action
    251-254    Experimental
        255    Standards Action
NEW
   The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry is Standards
   Action.

The registration policy for the entire registry is "Standards Action". Within the registry itself, the values 251-254 should be marked Experimental (which they are) and 255 should be marked Reserved (which it is), but that doesn't change the registration policy.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection