Re: IANA assignments

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

to what *change* do you refer here, when you say

" If not, at least, isn't it a good idea to let the WG know
the rational reason behind changing the proposed value in the
draft ?"

The SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC values were always mentioned as TBA
and value 3 has never been reserved -

Naidu, Venkata wrote:

> Bert,
>
> -> NOPE, cause it would not have been assigned based on the fact that
> -> it is in some ID.
> -> 
> -> > IMO this is an IANA process issue, but we've been here before 
> -> > (at least some of us), and never really resolved anything.
> -> > (A simple solution would be to reserve values for long lived drafts
> -> > and formally assign on RFC publication or return the values if/when
> -> > the draft dies.)
> -> >
> -> NOPE. The simple solution is that you request a value in 
> -> experimental 
> -> space while the ID is progressing and being discussed. Only at final
> -> ID approval and RFC-publication will a value in the STDS track space
> -> be assigned.
>
>   Is it possible for IANA to initiate a discussion in the mailing-list
>   before publishing a value, at least, for long lived drafts ? So that
>   we come to a consensus before assigning a value. If not, at least,
>   isn't it a good idea to let the WG know the rational reason behind 
>   changing the proposed value in the draft ?
>
> Venkata.

--
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491